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?



Saturday, March 15, 2008

Janet Folger Keynotes Pro-Life Rally in Rapid City

By Bob Ellis
Dakota Voice

RAPID CITY--Citizens concerned about life came out from across the state of South Dakota tonight for a pro-life rally at the Ramkota Hotel in Rapid City, South Dakota. The evening featured keynote speaker Janet Folger, who is an author, radio host and national pro-life leader.

The event was emceed by South Dakota Dist. 30 Representative Gordon Howie.

The event was opened with a prayer from Pastor Wes Labrier of the Union Center Community Baptist Church.

A video was shown which told attendees about the abortion ban petition for which signatures are currently being taken. The state of South Dakota requires 16,776 signatures, but the video said 18,000 are being sought. Volunteers were out in several cities across South Dakota today going door-to-door getting signatures.

It pointed out that this is not the same law brought before the voters in 2006, stating this one is “what you, the people of South Dakota demanded.” This referenced polls taken in 2006 which showed that 70 percent of South Dakotans supported an abortion ban that had exceptions for the life of the mother, the health of the mother, and for cases of rape and incest. This petition contains all those exceptions.

The video encouraged all who are concerned about life to contact VoteYesForLife.com for a petition package, seek to obtain at least 15 signatures, and to be a leader in their churches. The presentation also mentioned that VoteYesForLife.com is headquartered in Sioux Falls in a former abortion facility where 36,000 babies died.

Several state pro-life leaders were present and recognized by Howie: South Dakota House Majority Leader Rep. Larry Rhoden (Union Center), Assistant House Majority Leader Rep. Joel Dykstra (who is also a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate this year), Dale Bartscher of the South Dakota Family Policy Council, and for the leadership of the Catholic Diocese in South Dakota.

VoteYesForLife.com Treasurer Patti Giebink then spoke briefly. Giebink was once an abortion doctor with Planned Parenthood before experiencing a change of heart and mind, and joining the pro-life community.

Giebink said she wanted to address some comments she had heard in the past week on television about rape. Giebink said rape is a horrible experience that is physically and emotionally brutal. She said the contention of some that the woman who is a victim of rape should not receive a medical examination after being raped “borders on the absurd.”

A trained OB/GYN doctor, Giebink said she has been involved in helping women after a rape, and that it is important that doctors examine the woman for injuries and test for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). She said that doctors always collect evidence after a rape as a matter of procedure, so the allegations by some that the abortion petition’s requirement that DNA evidence be collected when a woman says she’s been raped is nothing improper or exceptional.

Giebink said that she had participated as a doctor in several rape cases and had never heard a woman complain about the medical exam. On the contrary, the exam is necessary to gather evidence to capture and convict the rapist and bring him to justice for his crime.

Giebink closed her comments on a personal note, stating that, since she used to perform abortions, she can’t bring back the lives she’s ended, but she can work tirelessly to prevent any more lives from being lost.

Leslee Unruh, head of the Alpha Center in Sioux Falls and a board member of VoteYesForLife.com, introduced Janet Folger. Folger is founder and president of Faith2Action, which features a daily radio program heard across South Dakota and across the nation. She has appeared on national news shows many times, and has authored several books including True to Life, The Criminalization of Christianity and her latest: Truth to Go in 30 Seconds Flat.

Folger stated that what happened in 1973 was that “seven men in the Supreme Court decided to impose their morality on the nation,” stripping protections from the unborn that were already in place in most states.

To those who believe restricting abortions involves unwarranted government intervention, she quotes Thomas Jefferson who said, “The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government."

Folger said that in criticizing the rape exception reporting requirements of the proposed law, abortion proponents are protecting rapists and putting young girls back into incest situations.

Concerning objections made by abortion proponents about the primacy of the doctor-patient relationship, Folger said, “The doctor-patient relationship argument is a sham.” She said that the woman seeking an abortion usually doesn’t see the doctor until she’s on the table for the abortion, and in some cases, may already be under anesthesia before the doctor enters the room.

“What a sham,” she said.

Folger pointed out that the pregnancy centers, not abortion centers, are the ones that really care about women.

“Look in the yellow pages and use this rule of thumb: If you see references to Visa and MasterCard, or money changes hands, you don’t have one that truly cares about women.” She said that pregnancy centers are the ones that help pregnant women with testing, baby bottles, diapers, baby sitting and many other goods and services—all free.

Referring to recent reports that Planned Parenthood will gladly take money earmarked to kill unborn minority children, Folger called the organization, “Klanned Parenthood.” She repeated the statement made by one Planned Parenthood office employee who, when the caller said we need fewer black babies in the world, said, “Understandable.”

“The rest of the world is watching,” she told those gathered tonight. “They expected you to give up. Yet they don’t realize we are not going away until children are protected again. Perseverance wins.”

She continued, “If you work in the abortion business, if you make a living killing children, you are now on notice that you will soon be looking for another job.”

Folger said that someday we would not only experience the Supreme Court decisions and political adulation, “Someday we will meet the children” that otherwise would have been killed in the womb.

“The tipping point is close,” Folger said. “Your purpose and destiny is before you.

“Someday our children and grandchildren will learn about what happened in 2008. They will have a question for us: ‘Where were you when they were killing babies?’”

Referring to the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, Folger concluded: “They picked this fight, but we are here to finish it.”

According to signs in the conference hall at the Ramkota, the theme of VoteYesForLife.com is “Making Things Right Again.”

How Much of Rev. Wright's Opinions Did Obama Know About?

Apparently there are even more skeletons in Rev. Jeremiah Wright's closet than have come to light recently.

Thanks to a post at Free Republic, I found a link to a NewsMax article from Aug. 9, 2007 which features some of the, ah, wisdom of Rev. Wright.

The article says this about the level of relationship Barack Obama has with his pastor:

Since the 1980s, Obama has not only remained a regular attendee at Wright's services in his inner city mega church, Trinity United Church of Christ, along with its other 8,500 members, he's been a close disciple and personal friend of Wright.

Wright conducted Obama's marriage to his wife Michelle, baptized his two daughters, and blessed Obama's Chicago home. Obama's best-selling book, "The Audacity of Hope," takes its title from one of Wright's sermons.

They might not be best pals, but Obama is obviously more than passingly familiar with Wright, and therefore has to be more than mildly familiar with Wright's opinions.

The Good Lord knows my mouth is not always clean, but we tend to expect a higher standard from a pastor and preacher. Yet the article has this quote from Rev. Wright:
In a sermon filled with profanity, Wright also blamed the war on "Bush administration bulls--t."

Wright had this to say about 911:
Wright on 9/11: "White America got their wake-up call after 9/11. White America and the Western world came to realize people of color had not gone away, faded in the woodwork, or just disappeared as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns." On the Sunday after the attacks, Dr. Wright blamed America.

He has this to say about Israel and terrorist attacks against innocent Israeli civilians:
Wright on Israel: "The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism."

Wright has even made the rounds with some of America's enemies:
Wright first came to national attention in 1984, when he visited Castro's Cuba and Col. Muammar Gaddafi's Libya.

Wright's Libyan visit came three years after a pair of Libyan fighter jets fired on American aircraft over international waters in the Mediterranean Sea, and four years before the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland — which resulted in the deaths of 259 passengers and crew. The U.S. implicated Gaddafi and his intelligence services in the bombing.

Wright on "white America:"
Wright laced into America's establishment, blaming the "white arrogance" of America's Caucasian majority for the woes of the world, especially the oppression suffered by blacks. To underscore the point he refers to the country as the "United States of White America." Many in the congregation, including Obama, nodded in apparent agreement as these statements were made.

Didn't Obama say yesterday that he wasn't aware of these vitriolic statements made by Wright? Or was that some of the other vitriolic statements Wright made to which Obama was referring?

It looks like Obama's claims that "I didn't know" regarding Rev. Wrights racist and anti-American sentiments is pretty thin...

G Movies 438 Percent More Profitable than R

What we read, listen to and watch helps shape who we are and the values we hold.

If that were not so, businesses would not spend millions to fill one quarter of every hour on our televisions with advertising. They wouldn't pump advertising out on radio stations, fill our magazines with it, or even delay the start of our movies with it at the theater. Advertising obviously influences our actions.

But the same is true with the actual programing we take in on TV, from the radio and at the movie theater. Does that programming consist of wholesome themes, wholesome visuals and wholesome dialogue? Or does it debase virtue and teach us bad attitudes and habits?

With so much of what is offered at the movie theater being R-rated (and so many of the PG-13 movies as bad as an R of a few years ago), these movies that push the moral envelope must certainly be raking in lots of money for movie companies to continue producing them.

Actually, that's not the case at all. In fact, you might be surprised at how poorly the average R rated movie performs.

From WorldNetDaily comes an article about a recent study done by the Christian Film and Television Commission, publishers of Movieguide.

According to the study, G-rated movies averaged nearly $92.2 million, more than 438 percent better than R-rated movies, making only $17.1 million.

Last year, seven films with a G or PG rating earned more than $100 million at the domestic box office, and three PG-rated films ("Shrek the Third," $322 million; "National Treasure: Book of Secrets," $216 million; and "Alvin and the Chipmunks," $213 million) were among the year's top 10 earners.

Only one R-rated film made the top 10, and it was No. 10, "300," with earnings of $210 million.

No. 11 on the list was G-rated "Ratatouille" with $206 million.

I've seen both 300 and Ratatouille, and they were both good movies.

300 had a couple of scenes with (for these days) fairly mild nudity and a couple of brief scenes with sexual themes, and of course since it dealt with the battle between King Leonidas and his 300 Spartans against Xerxes' Persians at Thermopylae, it was pretty violent. The movie could have been just as good without the nudity or sex scenes, and I would therefore consider them purely gratuitous, but at least the violence of the movie was contextual for the brutality of the period. It did contain redeeming qualities which elevated the virtues of honor, courage, loyalty, family, military service, professional excellence, fighting tyranny, and giving one's life for others.

Ratatouille, which I saw with my wife and children, was a different sort. It was an animated film about a rat who wanted to be a master chef. It was funny, featured good quality animation, and was pretty clean. We all walked away from it having had some good laughs, and more importantly, a good time as a family.

Not only do most people want to see something redeeming and uplifting, there are other reasons why G movies do better financially.

What responsible parent is going to bring their child to the average R movie, especially young children? A G movie has a shot at selling 3, 4 or more tickets per family per showing. Meanwhile, the R probably only has a shot at selling two tickets per family per showing. Do the math.

This trend holds true overseas as well:
The report adds that 90 percent of the top 20 movies overseas had no graphic sexual content and no homosexual content or references, while 85 percent had no explicit nudity.

So why don't we see more positive, wholesome fare from Hollywood? It certainly can't be the math, or the profit margin. They aren't stupid; they know very well which movies are most likely to rake in the cash.

Could it then be an agenda of promoting a certain set of moral values? What else could it be?

Video: Obama Would Have Quit Church Had He Known

From Breitbart.com, video from Fox News of Barack Obama talking about his pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his church

Barack Obama: "If I had thought that was the tenor or tone on an ongoing basis of his sermons, then yes, I don't think it would've been reflective of my values or my faith experience...If I had heard them repeated, I would've quit."

I appreciate Obama's statement of repudiation of Rev. Wright's racist, America-hating values, but I find it hard to believe that Obama could have been a regular member of this church without being aware of such sentiments from his pastor.

Also, the anti-American values of Wright, while more extreme, are nevertheless in the same general direction of the sentiments of Michelle Obama, Barack's wife, who recently said

What we've learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback. It is making a comeback, and let me tell you something, for the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.

Michelle Obama is about three years older than I am, and I cannot even begin to count the times I've been "really proud" of my country. Despite it's faults, on a daily basis, I am really proud of my country.

On a related issue, MSNBC reports Wright has left the Obama campaign, though it is not clear whether he volunteered to leave, or was asked to leave.

Environmentalism as a Religion

Michael Crichton on Environmentalism as a Religion

Obama Military Advisor: Iran Belligerence Bush's Fault

You may be familiar with "battered wife syndrome" where a woman can become convinced that the beatings she suffers at her husband's hands are her fault, that she brought them on herself.

Most liberals, too, suffer from a form of this malady. They see the United States, the most free, most selfless country in the world as the source of all the evil in the world. Indeed, we foster evil in other countries.

We see a dangerous example of this played out by retired Air Force Gen. Merrill McPeak. McPeak is Senator Barack Obama's most senior military advisor.

According to today's Washington Times,

Sen. Barack Obama's most senior military adviser says President Bush is to blame for Iran's bad behavior.

How does McPeak explain this? He says Iran, the world's biggest supporter of terrorism, doesn't like al Qaeda and didn't like the Taliban in Afghanistan. But President Bush's "tough talk" and reference to Iran as a part of the "axis of evil" after 911 somehow pushed this peace-loving country to hate us.

According to the article, McPeak supports Obama's idea of "talking to" the Iranians to see if we have "common ground."

Frankly, if we have any "common ground" with this brutal, oppressive, belligerent, bloodthirsty regime, we'd better get examine our own hearts and get ourselves right!

And "talking to" hostile nations like Iran tends to get us what Neville Chamberlain got when he "talked to" Herr Hitler: a worthless piece of paper that was figuratively burned up in the fires of war less than a year later. Appeasement does not work.

For the moment, wisdom speaks from the White House:
National security officials note that Iran's rogue behavior long predates Mr. Bush's speech. In June 2001, the Justice Department indicted 13 members of a pro-Iranian group, Saudi Hezbollah, for carrying out the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing that killed 19 American service members in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Hezbollah, a terrorist group, held regular meetings in Iran, the FBI said.

"With all due respect to General McPeak, what drives the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran apart — and has since 1979 — is the unwavering antipathy of the regime in Tehran towards the United States, its ally Israel, and freedom-loving, non-Islamist nations more generally," said Frank Gaffney, a Pentagon policy-maker in the Reagan administration who heads the Center for Security Policy.

Added Mr. Gaffney: "It is not simply naive, it is reckless to ignore serial statements by the mullahs and their front man, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, about a world without America, their goons parading in Iranian cities shouting 'Death to America,' their active efforts to kill and maim Americans and Iraqis in the hope of defeating the United States in Iraq, and rendering the latter an oil-rich satellite and new safe-haven for Iranian-backed terror, and accumulating evidence that Iran's Hezbollah proxies and their intelligence agents are developing cells capable of unleashing deadly violence here as well as elsewhere.

I was still in the Air Force when Gen. McPeak was Commander in Chief of the Air Force. I didn't care much for him, and no one I knew cared much for him, either.

Most military people have a good sense for detecting good qualities in their leaders, and they are also pretty reliable at sniffing out the ones that through stupidity or self-interest tend to get people killed in wartime.

This is, of course, anecdotal and intangible evidence, at best. But it does go along with this incredibly irresponsible position held by Gen. McPeak.

I haven't been a fan of John McCain since he began cultivating his liberal streak in the late 1990s. But he is infinitely preferable to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama for president.

I used to think Hillary Clinton was more dangerous than Barack Obama. Given what I've seen in the past few days from Obama's church, and now this on the world stage, I'm quickly becoming convinced that he may be the most dangerous choice of all.

Lesson 10 - The American Experiment: Stepping Stones

The Truth Project continues this week at South Canyon Baptist Church in Rapid City at 8:57 am on Sunday. Join us this week for Lesson 10.

America is unique in the history of the world. On these shores a people holding to a biblical worldview have had an opportunity to set up a system of government designed to keep the state within its divinely ordained boundaries. Tour #10 follows the history of this experiment and explores what happens to freedom when God is forgotten.

Visit www.thetruthproject.org for more information.

Housing market needs dose of more reality, not more government


Watching the housing/mortgage/financial crisis unfold, I keep thinking about the joke about the difference between neurotics and psychotics. The former builds castles in the sky and the latter moves into them.

Until the bubble burst, a lot of folks were living in these castles in the air, made possible by bountiful and creative mortgage financing.

Now, we're being reminded that there is indeed something called reality from which many became detached.

Peter Thiel, president of the global hedge fund Clarium Capital Management and co-founder of PayPal, writing about market bubbles in the latest Policy Review journal of the Hoover Institution, says that "U.S. real estate prices in 2005 were more distorted than in 1929, 1979 or 1989, or at any other time in history."

As with every crisis, there is a search for the culprit -- the cause of it all. But what is striking in what we are now witnessing is the diffuse and highly egalitarian nature of the suffering.

The pain is spread across the full spectrum of the housing marketplace, from the homeowner, to the brokers, to the loan originators, to the financial geniuses who designed and managed the high-tech securities delivering John Smith's loan to the global capital markets, to the CEOs of the financial giants managing all of this.

We're, of course, hearing rhetoric about so-called predatory lending, and low-income borrowers being peddled loans that they could neither understand nor afford. But if this was really about predators, they had to be predators with a death wish because the hunters have gone to slaughter along with the hunted.

As the Cato Institute's Alan Reynolds points out, foreclosures have not been limited to low-income families with sub-prime adjustable-rate mortgages. Reynolds, citing the Mortgage Bankers Association, notes that "prime mortgages (mostly fixed-rate) accounted for 45 percent of all foreclosures in the third quarter of last year, while sub-prime ARMs accounted for 43 percent."

There is reasoning tracing all this to the Community Reinvestment Act passed in 1977 under President Jimmy Carter, designed to address allegations of redlining -- banks refusing to set up shop and lend in low-income minority neighborhoods.

The claim here is that the CRA put banks between a rock and hard place. They had to either loosen their lending standards and accept the inevitable financial consequences or incur fines.

Undoubtedly, the CRA did cause distortions, as all political impositions on markets do, and surely contributed to the problem. But the explosion could not have occurred without problems and distortions in every part of this market.

If, indeed, we could identify one culprit, then we might imagine a "silver bullet" that could fix the problem. But, as Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson pointed out, in announcing the broad reforms suggested by the President's Working Group, no such "silver bullet" exists.

To go back to the psychotic living in the castle in the sky, the task today must be to restore a sense of reality to the patient rather than moving in with him. Unfortunately, what many of our friends from the Democratic Party are proposing is closer to the latter.

A return to reality means bolstering the integrity of law and contracts and the restoration of a sense of personal responsibility on the part of all market participants. A healthy housing market depends on this. But so does our whole free society.

Proposals such as allowing bankruptcy judges to rewrite mortgage terms contributes to chaotic fundamentals as opposed to remedying this.

Similarly, massive government intervention, whether it be through moratoriums on foreclosures and interest-rate freezes, like Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton wants, or government takeovers and refinancing of loans, closer to what we're hearing from her rival for the nomination, Barack Obama, creates new distortions and free-lunch illusions.

It may sound nice for the government to hold up prices and fend off foreclosures. But where is the justice for those who sat this out?

It is true that only about half of black families own their homes, compared to three-quarters of white families. A drop in home prices to a new low could put homeownership within reach for those who could not afford it previously. Must the innocent and responsible pay the price for those who decided to climb out on a limb?

Let's not forget now that our resilient and prosperous free society is built on law and personal responsibility. Pain is a normal part of life. It tells us something is wrong. What is critical is that we get the right message about the nature of the problem.


Correction from last week: The statistic that 26 percent of Americans are evangelical Christians comes from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and not the Pew Foundation.


Star Parker is president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education and author of the new book White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.

Prior to her involvement in social activism, Star Parker was a single welfare mother in Los Angeles, California. After receiving Christ, Star returned to college, received a BS degree in marketing and launched an urban Christian magazine. The 1992 Los Angeles riots destroyed her business, yet served as a springboard for her focus on faith and market-based alternatives to empower the lives of the poor.

Friday, March 14, 2008

Obama Statement Denounces Pastors Comments, Yet Questions Remain

The firestorm of controversy touched off by the sermon of Reverend Jeremiah Wright at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago has created quite a problem for Barack Obama, since this is his church and his pastor.

In case you missed it, ABC News yesterday ran a story of some of Rev. Wright's comments which included:

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

The pastor also made statements that sounded prejudiced against white people.

A video of some of Rev. Wright's comments was also posted to YouTube (see below).

Many people, myself included, wondered why Obama had not strongly repudiated these comments and distanced himself from Wright, who is one of his advisers. Many, myself included, also wondered why Obama still attended this church, if he disagreed with the pastor's statements.

Today, from the Brody File at CBN News, Obama says he didn't personally hear the controversial statements made by his pastor which came to light recently, and explains why he hasn't left that church:
The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

I would encourage everyone to read Obama's statement in it's entirety.

I'm glad Obama has clarified, at least to some degree, both his disagreement with the statements of Rev. Wright, and why he remained in this church.

However, even though Rev. Wright is retiring, as I pointed out yesterday, the church itself holds some pretty radical opinions.

For instance, the church's "About Us" page sounds very Afrocentric and centered around black ethnicity, rather than around Christ:
We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

Since the Bible makes it clear that no status, including race, matters to God, the emphasis on ethnicity seems out of place.

If one inserted "white" instead of "black," a firestorm of controversy would justifiably erupt over such a statement:
We are a congregation which is Unashamedly White and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the White religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are a European people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage ... It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a White worship service and ministries which address the White Community.

The church has also stated that it is committed to what is called "The Black Value System;" it, too, sounds inordinately centered around ethnicity rather than around Christ.

Questions remain about Obama's relationship with his pastor and Obama's embrace of these attitudes.

Obama says he joined Trinity United Church of Christ nearly 20 years ago; are we to believe that the one time Rev. Wright used this inflammatory, America-hating language, Obama happened to be out of town...and didn't even hear about it when he went to church the next time? If this was indeed a rare occurrence, certainly it would have made enough of a splash in the congregation that he would have heard about it from other church members. Logically, I would have to conclude that this type of paranoid, bitter rhetoric is common in the church.

Even if Rev. Wright seldom preached about this, this is obviously something he believes very passionately. Surely those opinions would have been broached in personal conversation between Wright and Obama, if they are close enough that Obama considers him his spiritual advisor.

Also, if Obama knew about this kind of opinion held by Wright, why does he consider Wright an advisor in his campaign?

And does Obama agree or disagree with the ethnically-centered focus of his church, where it seems Jesus Christ takes a back seat to the concerns of skin color?

The degree to which Obama may or may not agree with or acquiesce to these sentiments bears strongly on his suitability as President of the United States.

Can someone who shares the views of Rev. Wright in his vehement bitterness toward different skin colors be trusted to lead ALL Americans, regardless of ethnicity?

Can someone who shares the views of Rev. Wright in his vociferous disdain for the United States be trusted to lead the United States?

Violent Peace Activists

This kind of behavior is unconscionable. It ought to earn these anti-American dirtbags a one-way trip to the most despotic country on earth, to give them a chance to understand how good they had it in the U.S. There are plenty of America-haters in these despotic countries; they'd fit right in.

Television ad by Move America Forward - the nation's largest pro-troop organization - highlights campaign of violence by 'peace' activists against military recruiters.

Pastors Sitting out the Fight for Life

Pastor Steve Hickey at Voices Carry reports that despite a very good response from most pastors and churches on the abortion ban petition, there are a few who have chosen to sit out the fight to protect human life that is created in the image of God.

Pastor Steve's latest post lists a few of the excuses he's heard:

1) "This isn't good for my congregation." Oh, dear pastor, if only you knew how "good" this is for your congregation and how tied this is to God's favor in your midst and nationally. God blesses those who bless kids.

2) "Lady, you can't guilt me into this!" Sir, study the bloodguilt Scriptures. The guilt is inescapable. And, by the way, be nice. Out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. Your tone is quite revealing.

3) "No, we aren't putting petitions out. I'm not going to create problems for myself." Pastor, what other key mandates in Scripture do you avoid so as to not make waves? My congregation thanks me for strong moral leadership.

Read the whole post at Pastor Steve's personal blog, Voices Carry.

How to Be Environmentally Friendly

In this video, the BBC (not a conservative news outlet by any stretch) tells us how we can reduce our "carbon emissions" by 60%.

Are you ready to jump onboard? Is Al Gore?

Kids Today Don’t Stand a Chance

By John W. Whitehead

On March 11, 2008, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released the results of a study which found that nearly 26% (1 in 4) of American teenage girls ages 14-19 have at least one sexually transmitted disease. This report and its ramifications, however, were quickly shelved so that the media could provide us with non-stop coverage of the New York governor’s sexcapades with a prostitute.

As titillating as the Spitzer scandal might seem, its impact is fleeting when compared to the fact that approximately 3.2 million young women in the United States are estimated to be infected with a wide range of sexually transmitted diseases. Of the 838 teen girls surveyed, approximately 50% admitted to being sexually active. Of this 50%, an overwhelming 40% tested positive for a sexually transmitted disease.

In addition, the study found that 48% of African-American teenagers were infected with a sexually transmitted disease and that 15% of the teenage girls who had an infection had more than one. The CDC also claims that the prevalence among teenage girls may actually be higher than their report indicates, as the study fails to include sexually transmitted diseases such as gonorrhea, HIV and syphilis.

These statistics should have sent shockwaves across the nation. Instead, they were greeted with a lack of surprise by groups like Planned Parenthood. And although few people had much to say about why the numbers are so high, Dr. Dorothy Ferguson, medical director at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, attributes the rise in sexually transmitted diseases to the fact that we’re not teaching our young people enough about sex, specifically safe sex practices.

Yet I would suggest the very opposite: Not only are we teaching our young people too much about sex, we’re teaching them all the wrong things.

When I was growing up, corporate America didn’t sell sex the way it does today. But for corporate America today, the only bottom line is money. Today’s world is one in which sex sells—where images regarding sexuality are continuously discussed and propagated through print and television media, as well as the Internet.

Advertisements bombard our young people’s minds with messages that either overtly or indirectly strive to sell merchandise through the promotion of sexuality. For example, the clothing company Abercrombie & Fitch has been under constant fire for its catalogs and advertisements which depict scantily clad individuals engaging in what critics have labeled “group sex.” Even advertisements for more innocuous products such as toothpaste and acne medication imply that their products will help the guy “get the girl” and be more successful sexually.

Furthermore, our movies, music, celebrities and pop culture all portray sex as glamorous and lacking real-life consequences, such as disease and pregnancy. A study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that “more than half of all television programs, excluding news, sporting events, and children’s programming, contained sexual content, incorporating an average of more than three scenes per hour. Less than 10% of the programs with sexuality themes incorporated any reference to the consequences of sexual activity.”

There can be no mistaking the fact that our children are modeling their behavior after our own. Accustomed to living in and for the moment, we fail to consider the consequences. We have adopted the motto, “if it feels good, do it.” We have become a nation of people without limits—a people with no moral compass.

Yet it was not always this way. Religion and moral values were once the glue that held our communities and families together. They taught us that there must be internal limits in each of us—lines that must not be crossed. Throughout our history, churches, synagogues, families and schools worked together to teach children right and wrong. And for the most part, we lived within those limits.

Today, our children are stuck in a moral vacuum of our own making. Our religious institutions have lost the moral high ground and, thus, no longer speak with authority. And teachers refuse to mention the word “morality” in the classroom out of fear of a lawsuit. Worst of all, the traditional family is in a shambles. The picture of the American family shows a broken home, shattered by divorce, infidelity and distrust. America’s divorce rate hovers around 50%, and not even religious leaders are immune. According to a survey, one in five adults in a monogamous relationship has cheated on his/her partner. The rate is even higher among married men. Perhaps most disturbing, surveys have found that “married folks with kids—including women with very young children—are nearly as likely to commit adultery as childless couples.”

As a consequence of our rash behavior, our children have learned that they can have sex whenever and with whomever they want. After all, they can just take a pill to prevent pregnancy. And if they do get pregnant, all they have to do is head down to the local abortion clinic for a quick fix. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a leading tracker of abortion statistics, 24% of all pregnancies end in abortion. In 2002 alone, 1.29 million abortions occurred. And now we’re looking to vaccines and other prevention strategies to “fix” the high incidence of sexually transmitted diseases among young people.

However, handing out condoms and IUDs to kids will not alleviate the problem because the real issue goes to the very heart of our system of values and the way we view one another. When we reduce sex to nothing more than a biological act, of course we’re going to find ourselves riddled with diseases, unwanted pregnancies and failed relationships.

If we really care about our children, we had better take a good look in the mirror. Our kids don’t stand a chance unless we can shore up the family structure, restore a sense of community and teach them morality, values and respect.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

NewsBusted Conservative Comedy 148

Topics in this episode (taped before Spitzer prostitute story broke):

--Michelle Obama thinks America is "downright mean"

--Will Barack and Hillary team up in '08?

--Environmentalist group Earth Liberation Front turns to arson

--Amy Winehouse contracts a skin infection

--Rapper Lil Jon starts a wine label (seriously)

NewsBusted is a comedy webcast about the news of the day, uploaded every Tuesday and every Friday.

If you like the show, be sure to subscribe!

Isolation, Despair on the Reservations

A report today from CBN News paints a stark picture of life on the reservation.

The article mentions the broken treaties and isolation many Native Americans were forced into on the reservations, stating that isolation continues today.

The article concentrates on the Crow Creek Sioux Reservation in South Dakota, but many of the problems cited are common to other reservations in South Dakota, including the tremendously high suicide rate which made headlines repeatedly last year.

Substance abuse is also a big problem:

Sandy Gabe was also an alcoholic. He says substance abuse is a big problem with many Native Americans using their government assistance checks to feed their habits, instead of their families.

"It's the first thing they do," he explained. "It's drugs and alcohol. Later on, maybe it's some groceries. Maybe they feed their kids. Their priorities are all wrong."

The article mentions a number of factors behind the despair, including historical mistreatment, forced cultural changes, and the poor living conditions.

I've never lived on a reservation, but I've visited a number of times and spent some time at the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation on missions projects with my church. There are exceptions, but most of what I saw demonstrated a rough life.

Some call the situation on the reservations a man-made crisis.
Rod Vaughn founded the Christian non-profit organization, Diamond Willow Ministries, to reach out to Native Americans on the Crow Creek Sioux reservation.

"To me it's a train wreck," he said. "When you have reliance on a federal government with a shrinking deficit for your health care, for your housing -- for everything, and you really don't have much of a political voice," he explained. "So when there's cuts, the cuts seem to be deeper here. It is a real critical situation."

Bruce Whalen, the 2006 Native American Republican candidate for South Dakota's lone U.S. House of Representative seat, said that year that the socialism which is a way of life on the reservation exacerbates the problem.

From a CNN report in 2006:
"Socialism doesn't work, folks," Whalen said.

Despite the depressing tone of the CBN article, there were some bright spots.

It pointed out that the warrior culture of Native Americans continues, and they have served in the U.S. military at a greater rate than any other ethnicity.

In the article, Vaughn also points out the hope available in Jesus Christ:
"Pray that the barriers, the generational sin, the darkness can be broken," Vaughn told CBN News. "Prayer is so powerful."

"All they have to do is reach out their hand like I did," Gabe said. "God took my hand and gave me something, and I'm glad of that."

There are a number of ministries to the hurting people on the reservations, and many churches send short-term help from all over the country.

But more help is always needed.

Misdiagnosis Leads to Abortion of Healthy Child

From LifeSiteNews.com comes the story of a woman who was told by St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital in New York that she had an ectopic pregnancy, which means the embryo implants in the fallopian tube. Such a pregnancy is fatal to the unborn child and can be very hazardous for the mother.

Based on the hospital's diagnosis, Ndoye agreed to terminate her pregnancy, and was given a shot of methotrexate, a drug that would kill the embryo. When Ndoye returned later in the day for a follow-up shot, the doctors informed her that the first diagnosis had been a mistake, and that her pregnancy was, in fact, healthy.

But by then, it was too late. The drug had done it's work, and her child was dead.
Ndoye claims that doctors exerted heavy pressure for her to abort the pregnancy before she was informed of the mistake. She said the sonogram technician "freaked out" after her examination, and called a doctor, who advised termination of the pregnancy.

"I thought my life was threatened," said Ndoye.

This is not the only time a diagnosis has been mistaken.

It's important to be sure, even seek a second opinion in such cases, because doctors and other medical personnel are just like the rest of us: they're human, and they can make mistakes.

But once an abortion is performed, it's too late. The only think left is regret.

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Study: Terrorists Emboldened by Anti-War Reporting

Supporters of our troops and the war in Iraq have long stated that comments made by liberal U.S. politicians, anti-war groups and a liberal media embolden the enemy and prolong the struggle.

Now, U.S. News and World Report brings word of a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

The paper, entitled "Is There an 'Emboldenment' Effect in Iraq? Evidence From the Insurgency in Iraq," included these findings:

In periods immediately after a spike in "antiresolve" statements in the American media, the level of insurgent attacks increases between 7 and 10 percent.

Insurgent organizations are strategic actors, meaning that whatever their motivations, religious or ideological, they will respond to incentives and disincentives.

I wonder how many dead loved ones that 7-10% equates to? I wonder how many deaths are on the heads of the malcontents that reflexively hate-America-first and political opportunists who exploit bad news for political gain?

If anti-war people really wanted to end things more quickly and save lives, they'd get with the program so the enemy would see unwavering resolve and throw in the towel more quickly. The current news coverage and public dialogue (if you can call it that) serves only to encourage them to hold on until the weak Americans give up and go home--as we did in Vietnam.

The article points out some caveats such as the fact that it left out the city of Baghdad, but I can't see how the percentages and the cause/effect could be any different there.

Everyone has freedom of speech in a free society. But our words can have consequences. We used to understand this in our parents and our parents-parents generations; in World War II, some people disagreed with the war, but they pulled together for the greater good and to save lives.

For the sake of our military members, and the civilians in harm's way in Iraq and other locations, I wish everyone could summon that kind of maturity in our current struggle.

Media Somehow Misses Spitzer's Party Affiliation

If you're observant, you've probably noticed that for some inexplicable reason (scratch head here), the "mainstream" media has often missed the party affiliation of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer when discussing his hooker scandal.

If you're observant and insightful, you've probably made the connection that the party affiliation has been omitted because Spitzer is a Democrat.

The "mainstream" media never misses an opportunity to use the "Republican" or "conservative" label when one of them is involved in a scandal (usually breathlessly repeating it like a mantra), but when the perpetrator is a Democrat, you often have to actually go to the politicians website to determine their party affiliation.

The Media Research Center and Newsbusters have done a comparison to some of the other scandals committed by Republicans, and put a number on the Spitzer scandal.

The list of examples goes on, but the bottom line is that in the early days of their scandals, Vitter and Craig were labeled as Republicans on every broadcast news program — 100% — that mentioned their wrongdoing. For Democrat Spitzer, four out of five news programs (80%) have skipped his label. On NBC’s Today and Nightly News through Wednesday night, reporters never once acknowledged that Spitzer was a Democrat.

Surprised? I didn't think so.

Video: John Kerry Confronted About Winter Soldier

YAF/HotAir correspondent Jason Mattera confronts John Kerry about his Winter Soldier testimony--and asks for a special autograph.

Theater Employees Slander Christian Movie

In an age when Hollywood seems to always be pushing the envelope on sex, violence, bad attitudes and depravity, it's hard to find something wholesome and uplifting to watch during a night out at the movies.

Last month, my wife and I found such a movie on a much-needed "date night" with the kids at the sitters.

Before we went out, we looked at a website listing movie reviews of the movies that were in town then. Being the sensitive husband that I am, I veered away from action-flicks like "Jumpers" that otherwise might have tickled my sci-fi itch and looked at the one a loving couple could enjoy together.

We settled on Me & You, Us, Forever as our movie for the evening. A quick review told us all we needed to know: it was a Christian film, had an interesting premise (a Christian man, unwillingly divorced by his wife, thinks back to "what might have been" with his high school sweetheart), and one of the actresses was a native of our state of South Dakota: Sandi Fix, a former Miss South Dakota.

We watched the movie and though it was a little stiff in places, we thoroughly enjoyed it. It had something everyone can relate to. Who hasn't hit a rough patch in their life and sought the solace of thinking about a happier time in the past? And what Christian hasn't wrestled with the conflict between our spiritual calling and the cry of our raw emotions?

As we left the theater, my wife remarked on how good it was to be able to enjoy a "clean" night out at the movies.

So I was rather disappointed to see a report today from OneNewsNow that some theater employees across the country have been bad-mouthing the movie to potential viewers.

Cecile Wood, who resides in Newnan, Georgia, watched the movie one afternoon with a friend at the local Carmike Cinema. She says she had an interesting conversation while standing in line. "I said, I hope this movie's going to be good," she recalls. "The manager came up and said, 'Oh, I don't think you'll like it, and if you don't like it you can get a refund ticket.' And he said, 'Oh, by the way, my shift is fix'n to be over, so I'll go ahead and give you a refund ticket now.' And he did."

The article tells of another incident which occurred in California. The theater confirmed the incident and apologized to the film maker.

I have to wonder if the same theater employees (or any theater employees) would have done something similar when The Da Vinci Code was playing, or The Last Temptation of Christ, or some of the average rotgut showing at many theaters these days.

What has happened to a country, founded by Christians on Christian principles, where theater employees automatically assume patrons won't like a Christian movie?

Christians have failed to engage and challenge the culture, that's what.

But movies like this are doing so, and Christians should support them...even when theater employees try to talk us out of it.

Another Terrorist Torture Chamber Uncovered

While Democrats and some in the Republican Party would rather bury their heads in the sand and slink away from the War on Terrorism in defeat, there are increasing news reports of torture rooms being found and destroyed by military forces.

The latest comes from UPI in Afghanistan:

British Coldstream Guards were alerted to the chamber with intelligence from Afghan National Army. Officials say troops also found "two Afghan police uniforms -- one of which had the crotch ripped out -- plus the butt of a Kalashnikov assault rifle and wires carrying full electric power," the release said.

"We heard the Afghan National Army had been badly spooked by something," Lance Cpl. Steve Walker said in a statement. "They had found a torture chamber and we went down a set of steps to the 8ft by 4ft room.

"Chains were hanging from the ceiling; broken glass was on the floor and bamboo sticks which we presume were for beatings. There was definitely dried blood on the floor. I knew that sort of stuff probably goes on but you don't expect to come across it."

Officials say troops have destroyed the torture facility with explosives.

U.S. forces will have to remain in Iraq and Afghanistan until local forces are fully capable of dealing with this kind of barbarism.

And as long as the Ostrich Party (made up mostly of members of the Democrat Party, with some from the Republican Party) continues to lend aid, comfort and hope to the terrorists with their wailing and moaning, the day U.S. forces can leave will remain elusive.

The Victimization of Hillary Clinton & the So-Called Sisterhood

by Carrie K. Hutchens

It shouldn't be surprising, I suppose, but here we have another Hillary Clinton supporter injecting the thought of race into the conversation, while claiming it is Obama's campaign that is always doing so. Excuse me? Have we all entered the realm of the Twilight Zone and yet to realize it?

It doesn't matter if Geraldine Ferraro was "actually" trying to say one thing and it came out sounding like a racist statement unlike what she meant. What matters is how she then became offended and felt she was deserving of the apology, rather than giving one. (Victim card.) How she then tried to claim that Obama's camp was the one guilty of playing the race card. Another... excuse me! And what dimension has she been in these past several months? Doo doo doo doo!

The irony goes on...

Hillary Clinton wants us to see her as the one ready on "day one", yet cries to us how she has been ganged up on by the boy's club, and abused by the media and anyone else that doesn't kiss up to her? People call this a person ready to become President of the USA? I don't!

Has Hillary, and those standing with her, "ever" thought of the possibility that it isn't the fact that Hillary is a "woman", but rather, that it is Hillary in particular that people have a problem with?

Who are these people who seem to think that Hillary Clinton is "so disliked" that she can be elected? (That thought makes sense to whom?)

As a female, who spent the majority of my working career in a male dominated field, I find Hillary Clinton's behavior (and that of Geraldine Ferraro) offensive. People can actually not agree with someone and it not have a single thing to do with gender, race, or any other such nonsense. They can actually disagree simply because they do disagree with whatever is the issue at hand, and "ONLY" because of the issue, and it be nothing related to any specifics about the person (personally) on the other side of the fence. I would think most successful women in a male dominated field would realize that. I guess I was wrong. We seem to still have the old "sisterhood" attitude of years gone by trying to find fault where fault is not due. What a shame!

Gloria Steinem once claimed that Anita Hill being sexually harassed was far worse than it happening to a blue collar working woman. After all, they (blue collar working women) were used to that behavior and therefore it was not as traumatic to them. (Excuse me?)

Gloria Steinem also claimed to have been raised a lady, (unlike the blue collar class women?), while using the "f" word throughout the interview.

I hate to tell Gloria, even at this late date, but some blue collar class women who might even use the "f" word from time to time, do have the "class" not to use it at inappropriate times -- like during an interview that is going to be shared with the world. But then... I guess they weren't raised to be ladies, such as she was!

There are victims in this world, but I certainly don't believe that either Hillary Clinton or Geraldine Ferraro are victims in this present day campaign.

If Hillary Clinton loses the bid for the presidency, I don't believe for a moment that it will have a single thing to do with her being FEMALE! Instead, it is going to be because of her issues, her experience, her ability, her attitude, her behavior as a person -- not because she happens to be a "female" person. So for anyone to imply that she is being treated differently in a negative fashion because of her gender, is actually an insult to all women and, in particular, the women who might actually be finding themselves in a situation of discrimination.

The voters, females in particular, ought to be offended by the fact that Geraldine Ferraro (and others before her) injected the race issue into the conversation about Obama and when called on it, wrongly said it was always the Obama's campaign that brought up race. By doing so, she insulted the intelligence of all who have been following the campaign, while giving the appearance she was throwing misinformation out there with the hope at least some would take it as fact. I find that offensive.

Hillary Clinton and the so-called sisterhood victimized in this campaign event? Only in the zone of their minds, it would seem. But then... there's a really good chance that they don't really believe it either!

Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

Spending Too Much on Defense? Look at the Numbers

Rebecca Hagelin's TownHall.com column today debunks the myth that the United States is going bankrupt because of our defense spending, that we're spending too much money to stop the bad guys and keep the country safe.

Sadly, there are those even in the Republican Party who are perpetuating this myth, including Ron Paul.

Polls suggest that many Americans think we already spend too much on defense -- never mind adding more. Others think it makes up the largest part of the federal budget. Quick: How much of gross domestic product do you think we spend on defense?

25 percent of GDP? 50 percent?

The actual number is less than 4 percent. Bet you’ve never heard that from the establishment media or liberal leaders.

To put the amount in perspective: It’s less than the 4.6 percent we spent during the Gulf War, significantly lower than the 11.7 percent we invested during the Korean War, and a fraction of the 34 percent we spent during World War II.

Just 4% of our GDP? That's too much to keep America safe?

Look at it another way. We spend about 18% of our annual budget on defense. How much do we spend on social programs that are not authorized by our Constitution? About half of our budget. That means with a $3 trillion dollar budget, we're spending about $1.5 trillion dollars on things that our Constitution of limited, enumerated powers doesn't authorize us to fund!

Instead of bellyaching about spending too much to keep us safe and free, why don't Ron Paul and the liberals bellyache more about all this illegal spending on things Americans ought to be doing for themselves?

Freedom isn't free.

Obama's Church Hates America

I don't know about you, but I usually listen pretty closely to what my pastor says, and almost always try to live my life the way my pastor recommends.

There are some areas in the Bible that are not absolutely clear cut, and my pastor is human, too, so I don't follow him like I would follow Jesus if he were in the pulpit speaking to me, but he usually gets it right. If my pastor were preaching things that were clearly contrary to the Bible and contrary to what I observed in the world around me, I'd either speak to him about that or go find another church.

So it is that I have to wonder what Barack Obama is taking away from church services at his church, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

According to an ABC News article, here's the kind of theology the Reverend Jeremiah Wright preaches:

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism.

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost," he told his congregation.

Need I point out that crimes must be punished, for the sake of justice if not to protect the community? Need I point out that while America does not live up to its ideals perfectly, it is the most free and affluent nation in the world? Need I point out that the Japanese refused to surrender, and that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki undoubtedly saved far more lives than an invasion of Japan would have cost--even more Japanese lives? Need I point out that it is Palestinian terrorists who are blowing up innocent civilians, while the Israeli Defense Force is trying to stop these bloodthirsty militants practicing deadly subterfuge in civilian clothes?

So is Barack Obama taking anything away from his church that's having an impact in his life? One of his fellow church members thinks so. From the ABC News article:
"He has impacted the life of Barack Obama so much so that he wants to portray that feeling he got from Rev. Wright onto the country because we all need something positive," said another member of the congregation.

The article also says
Obama has praised at least one aspect of Rev. Wright's approach, referring to his "social gospel" and his focus on Africa, "and I agree with him on that."

Sen. Obama declined to comment on Rev. Wright's denunciations of the United States, but a campaign religious adviser, Shaun Casey, appearing on "Good Morning America" Thursday, said Obama "had repudiated" those comments.

If he's truly repudiated all those America-hating sentiments, I'd like to see that denunciation. Though I would leave a church that voiced these sentiments, a clear denunciation would do much to redeem Obama (at least in this regard) in my mind.

But is Obama's church a place where worship of God and following His commands (even if they interpret that in terms of the "social gospel") are paramount? Or is it an institution fixated on race and grudge-bearing?

Before the hate mail starts, I'd like to point out that I believe that skin color is irrelevant, both to God and to anything that matters. We are all children of God, regardless of skin color. My skin is white, and my best man at my wedding was a black man, and my children's closest playmates are black children. So I don't think any rational person could accuse me of being a racist.

Having gotten that out of the way, consider the "About Us" page of the church's website says
We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

What about the "Christian" experience? What about a "Christian" worship service? What about addressing the "Christian" community, or the community at large?

The page lists point #4 of a 10-point vision as "A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA." How about a "non-negotiable commitment to Christ?" Or at least a non-negotiable commitment to the country in which they reside--one that offers tremendously more prosperity and freedom than they will find anywhere in Africa?

Can you imagine a church that said something like this on it's "About Us" page:
We are a congregation which is Unashamedly White and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the White religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are a European people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage ... It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a White worship service and ministries which address the White Community.

The church is also committed to what it calls "The Black Value System" as found on their website. It, too, is a document that, if you substitute "white" for "black" would sound racist.

From a sermon posted on the church's website, Rev. Wright talks about a Marvin Gaye song:
I use his words today on the third Sunday of a New Year to keep before you the painful truth of who we are and where it is we are in this racist United States of America! What’s goin’ on?

We have lost over 3,000 boys and girls in an illegal and unjust war, and the media is on a feeding frenzy about Barack Obama’s church. Where is the outrage about the 3,000 dead dead Iraqi civilians who are dead for no reason other than greed and ego?What’s goin’ on? American military personnel and the 600,000 dead Iraqi civilians who are dead for no reason other than greed and ego? What’s goin’ on?

Amanda Carpenter's column today points out a video available on YouTube of a Rev. Wright sermon which seems more concerned about race that about Christ:

We saw recently how little Barack Obama's wife Michelle thinks of America:
What we've learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback. It is making a comeback, and let me tell you something, for the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.

When Obama's wife has such disregard for our country, when Obama's pastor and church hold such disdain (dare I say hatred?) for America, I have to wonder how Barack Obama really feels about America. Should someone who loathes America lead America?

And if he shares even half the disgust for America held by his wife, pastor and church, can America risk having a man like this in the White House?

McCain Statement Supporting Earmark Reform

ARLINGTON, Va., March 13 /Standard Newswire/ -- U.S. Senator John McCain today issued the following statement calling for a stop to earmarks:

"I am proud to have fought against the practice of earmarking and wasteful pork-barrel spending. It has often been a lonely fight, but one I know is worth winning. I am encouraged by some of my Democratic colleagues' new-found enthusiasm for suspending this practice for a year. I hope their recent commitments do not wane once they step off the campaign trail. I believe we must end this process, which has diverted billions in taxpayer dollars to needless projects, once and for all. If voters give me the pen, I will veto every single pork-barrel bill Congress sends me.

"The American people demand that we introduce transparency and good judgment in how we spend their tax dollars. If projects like the proposed taxpayer-funded Woodstock concert museum were worthy national priorities, their funding would not be sought through appropriations earmarks, rather, they could withstand the public scrutiny of the regular legislative authorization process.

"I am encouraged that Senators Clinton and Obama have joined me in supporting the DeMint amendment banning earmarks for one year. I renew my call for them to fully disclose all of their earmark requests while serving in the Senate and join me in increasing needed transparency and accountability in Washington."

Planned Parenthood Promotes the Benefits of Pornography

You may recall from previous reports I've done on Planned Parenthood's teen website called teenwire.com that this website goes a long way in encouraging sexuality, advanced sexuality, in our children.

While I may be some prudish Right winger, a porn star has weighed in and according to CNS News, he affirms that teenwire is an "excellent source" for children to learn about the "benefits" of pornography:

David Mech, or David Pounder as he's known in pornography circles, said that Planned Parenthood's Web site for teens, Teenwire.com, is an excellent source for young people to learn about what he considers the benefits of viewing pornography. Mech contacted Cybercast News Service after reading its report about Teenwire.

"Planned Parenthood is an excellent organization that helps people by focusing on how people actually are behaving (i.e., having sex, watching porn, doing drugs, etc.), as opposed to helping people based on how they should be behaving (abstaining from sex, watching the news, eating healthy, etc.)," Mech, a pornography producer and actor, told Cybercast News Service.

The South Dakota state library website had a link to this website a few years ago, until it was brought to the governor's attention. The removal of that link from the state website was fought by a number of people, including Eric Abrahamson, who ran for Lieutenant Governor of South Dakota on the Democrat ticket in 2006. Abrahamson is currently on the board of the Rapid City Library Foundation and is a board member of the Rapid City School District.

Read the rest of the CNS News article for more insights from this porn insider. It's very insightful.

Should our children be viewing teenwire.com?

Should we the parents be supporting Planned Parenthood with our tax dollars?

The Wisdom of War Protesters

Below is a video from the Daily Show with a fake correspondent who goes out and taps the "wisdom" of the anti-war crowd.

Some of my favorite parts:

The idiot protester says it's their free speech right to protest the Marines.

The interviewer asks, "If only there was an organization that was sworn to defend that free speech..."

The idiot protester replies, "Wouldn't that be great!"

(See why I call them "idiot protesters"?)

Another idiot protester says, "We don't need to be worrying about their [the Marines] rights. It's not an equal relationship."

Another of my favorite parts: the idiot peace protester says, "Wars in general would stop if we didn't have weapons."

The interviewer says, "So if we got rid of police, we wouldn't have crime?"

Idiot protester: "Potentially, yes." (with a smile).

One of the reasons I couldn't support Ron Paul for president is that he is aligned with these idiots with his talk of lies leading to war and an unjust war in Iraq.

HT to Newsbusters.

Video: War Protesters Interrupt Senate Session

From Breitbart:

AP: They had chanted, "The war is immoral! Stop funding the war!"—as police officers grabbed them and physically removed them from a visitors gallery overlooking the Senate floor.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

South Dakota Abortion Ban Gaining Momentum

As the petition deadline approaches in a couple of weeks, efforts continue in South Dakota to get the 16,776 petition signatures required to put the latest abortion ban measure on the November ballot.

This measure differs from the one in 2006 which contained no exceptions for rape, incest or the health of the mother. Supporters believed that was the most logical and consistent measure, since even children conceived in rape possess the same human dignity as any other child. Also, while there are few genuine reasons when an abortion may be necessary to preserve the physical health of the mother (1.5% of the abortions done in South Dakota in 2006 were for this reason), such an exception may be abused to justify abortion for other reasons.

Because that measure was rejected by voters, but polls taken that year indicted approx. 75% of voters would support a measure with exceptions, this time abortion opponents created a measure which contained exceptions for rape, incest, the health and life of the mother.

While these exceptions may be a concern for pro-life people who believe in the human dignity of all unborn children, the exceptions are very strictly worded so as to prevent abuse.

For instance, the rape exception requires that the rape be reported to law enforcement and that DNA evidence from the child be preserved for a match to the perpetrator. The incest exception contains similar requirements. Rape and incest made up 0.4% of the abortions done in 2006.

The health exception specifies that it is only allowed when there is "serious risk of a substantial and irreversible impairment of the functioning of a major bodily organ or system" which could be prevented by an abortion. This must be certified by a doctor.

Based on the reasons given for abortions in South Dakota in 2006 in a South Dakota Department of Health report, the proposed ban would prevent 98.1% of abortions in South Dakota.

Many pro-lifers believe it is better to save the 98.1% that can be saved under this bill, than to do nothing and save 0% of unborn children.

When pro-abortion groups spoke out against the 2006 bill, the reason given was the lack of exceptions. However, some of those same groups may be proving the disingenuousness that was suspected at the time.

According to an article from KELO today, the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, the ironically named group which spearheaded efforts to defeat the 2006 bill, have condemned the new bill because of the exceptions.

But Campaign for Healthy Families takes issue with those exceptions, saying it's an invasion of privacy for victims and interferes with doctor patient care.

"It is the cruelest and most callous approach to what it does to victims of rape and incest. It puts them through a bureaucratic process that is almost unforgivable. In our eyes in terms of those kinds of victims and then we victimize them again," Nicolay said.

Unruh says the additional requirements are designed to catch and prosecute rapists.

"As far as bureaucratic, we want to find the man. We should all want to find the man and put him in jail, so he doesn't hurt other women," Unruh said.

South Dakota pro-lifers say that a woman who has been raped needs justice, and the public needs to be protected from the man who raped her. That cannot be done if the rape is not reported to police and evidence is not gathered.

Abortion opponents also point out that the "doctor patient relationship" often cited by abortion advocates is practically non-existent. Abortions in South Dakota are performed by doctors who are flown in from Minnesota to the Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, and most women don't see the doctor until the abortion is about to be performed.

Ban proponents, led by VoteYesForLife.com, have already gathered thousands of signatures at churches throughout the state and on a recent tour of the state.

LifeNews.com today quotes VoteYesForLife.com board member Leslee Unruh:
On Wednesday, Unruh told the Argus Leader she “didn't want to guess” how many signatures the pro-life group has collected.

“But there’s no doubt we will reach the number we need by April 1st,” Unruh said about reaching the deadline.

If the measure gets on the ballot in November and passes, it will be a historic protection for unborn children not seen since the 1973 Supreme Court legalization of abortion.

Ultrasound Video Shows Who Pro-Lifers are Trying to Save

This is ultrasound footage from the DVD: "Eyewitness to the Earliest Days of Life"

The little people you saw moving around inside their mothers at only a few weeks development? Those are the little people we're trying to save with the South Dakota abortion ban and petition drive.

I hope you'll sign the petition and vote for the ban in November.

Keeping the Faith

Focus on the Family - Dr. James Dobson

About the program:

The Bible admonishes Christians "to contend earnestly for the faith" (Jude 1:3), yet as Chuck Colson traveled around the nation, he was alarmed to find that many believers were unable to explain the fundamental tenets of Christianity. The bestselling author addresses this problem with the recent release of what he says is one of the most important books he's ever written: The Faith: What Christians Believe, Why They Believe It and Why It Matters. Colson talks with Dr. James Dobson about basic Christian doctrines and why Christians must return to them if our nation is to ever experience a much-needed spiritual revival.

"[The church] doesn't know what it believes, or doesn't believe what's it's been taught to believe. So if that's the case, we can't live it, and even more serious, we can't define it to the world." - Chuck Colson

Click here to listen.

From OnePlace.com

Vice President Cheney Speech on Missile Defense

To commemorate the 25th anniversary of President Ronald Reagan's SDI speech, Vice President Cheney spoke to The Heritage Foundation about missile defense on March 11, 2008, at the Four Seasons in Washington, D.C.

Does Al Gore Walk the Talk That He Talks?

If you've been on earth long, you're familiar with Al Gore's wagging finger in our faces about the energy we use, our impact on the environment, and oh yes, that boogie monster global warming.

You would expect someone so concerned, so convicted about our planet and our "responsible" use of resources would be the epitome of environmental responsibility, right? Think again.

Did you know that President Bush's house in Texas is more environmentally friendly than Gore's?

Here's what a NewsMax article from a year ago reported:

An April 2001 article in USA Today described the president's 4,000-square-foot single-story limestone house in Crawford as an 'eco-friendly haven.'

'Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into purifying tanks underground - one tank for water from showers and bathroom sinks, which is so-called 'gray water,' and one tank for 'black water' from the kitchen sink and toilets,' it said. 'The purified water is funneled to the cistern with the rainwater.'

In addition, 'the Bushes installed a geothermal heating and cooling system, which uses about 25 percent of the electricity that traditional heating and air-conditioning systems consume.'

Of Gore's house, that same article said
...the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR) charged on Monday that Gore's mansion in Nashville "consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year."

Now comes a new ad from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) which illustrates how Gore lives high on the energy "hog" while expecting us "little people," including those struggling to get out of poverty, to bite the bullet. Are the little people saving energy and resources so Al Gore and his privileged elites can use more?

This ad focuses on the impact that Al Gore's proposed energy restrictions would have on the world's poor, and highlights the hypocrisy of Mr. Gore's own high-energy lifestyle.

For more information, check out http://www.cei.org or our global warming info here.

Text of President Bush's Speech to National Religious Broadcasters

WASHINGTON, March 11 /Standard Newswire/ -- President George W. Bush spoke yesterday at the 2008 National Religious Broadcasters Convention in Nashville, TN. Congressman Mike Pence attended the speech at the invitation of the President. Below is the portion of the speech pertaining to the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," as well as acknowledgment of Congressman Pence's work in bringing the Broadcaster Freedom Act before Congress. Congressman Pence's release can be found HERE.

"This organization has had many important missions, but none more important than ensuring our airways -- America's airways -- stay open to those who preach the Good News. (Applause.) The very first amendment to our Constitution includes the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. Founders believed these unalienable rights were endowed to us by our Creator. They are vital to a healthy democracy, and we must never let anyone take those freedoms away. (Applause.)

"I mention this because there's an effort afoot that would jeopardize your right to express your views on public airways. Some members of Congress want to reinstate a regulation that was repealed 20 years ago. It has the Orwellian name called the Fairness Doctrine. Supporters of this regulation say we need to mandate that any discussion of so-called controversial issues on the public airwaves includes equal time for all sides. This means that many programs wanting to stay on the air would have to meet Washington's definition of balance. Of course, for some in Washington, the only opinions that require balancing are the ones they don't like. (Laughter and applause.)

"We know who these advocates of so-called balance really have in their sights: shows hosted by people like Rush Limbaugh or James Dobson, or many of you here today. By insisting on so-called balance, they want to silence those they don't agree with. The truth of the matter is, they know they cannot prevail in the public debate of ideas. They don't acknowledge that you are the balance; that you give voice -- (applause.) The country should not be afraid of the diversity of opinions. After all, we're strengthened by diversity of opinions.

"If Congress truly supports the free and open exchange of ideas, then there is a way they can demonstrate that right now. Republicans have drafted legislation that would ban reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Unfortunately, Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives have blocked action on this bill. So in response, nearly every Republican in the House has signed onto what's called a "discharge petition," that would require Congress to hold an up or down vote on the ban. Supporters of this petition are only 24 signatures away.

"I do want to thank Mike Pence, who is with us today, and Congressman Greg Walden, for pressing this effort and defending the right for people to express themselves freely. And I urge other members to join in this discharge petition. But I'll tell you this: If Congress should ever pass any legislation that stifles your right to express your views, I'm going to veto it. (Applause.)

Clicky Web Analytics