Here, in his own words, Barack Obama tells us how he will gut our military and allow other nations to advance militarily while we disarm.
He says he will...
- cut tens of billions of dollars in "wasteful spending" (where are those tens of billions of dollars in "wasteful spending"?
- cut investments in "unproven" missile defense systems (like the one that has proven itself effective already, to protect us from nuclear attack?)
- not weaponize space (leaving communist China, Russia and other countries to do so at will)
- slow our development of future combat systems (allowing our many enemies around the world to catch up and surpass us
- set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons (implying the U.S.--which is the only country the president has authority over--wouldn't have them, while North Korea, Syria, Iran and other countries aggressively pursue them)
- seeking this goal, will not develop new nuclear weapons, will seek a ban on the production of fissionable materials, and will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert (the same Russia that helped Iraq against us in 2003, the same Russia that has begun buzzing our airspace as they did during the Cold War)
- achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal
I can barely stand the thought of voting for John McCain...but Obama is downright dangerous to national security.
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, May 24, 2008
Here, in his own words, Barack Obama tells us how he will gut our military and allow other nations to advance militarily while we disarm.
American Minute from William J. Federer
William Lloyd Garrison published the Boston anti-slavery paper "Liberator" and founded the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1833.
Suffering hundreds of death threats for his politically incorrect stand on the value of human life, William Lloyd Garrison died MAY 24, 1879.
He wrote: "I desire to thank God that He enables me to disregard 'the fear of man which bringeth a snare' and to speak His truth...while life-blood warms my throbbing veins...to oppose...the brutalizing sway - till Afric's chains are burst and freedom rules the rescued land."
In "W.P. and F.J.T. Garrison," 1885-89, William Lloyd Garrison wrote: "Wherever there is a human being, I see God-given rights inherent in that being, whatever may be the sex or complexion."
Former slave Frederick Douglass wrote in My Bondage and My Freedom, 1855: "After reaching New Bedford, there came a young man to me with a copy of the Liberator...edited by William Lloyd Garrison...His paper took its place with me next to the Bible...It detested slavery...and, with all the solemnity of God's word, demanded the complete emancipation of my race...His words were... holy fire...The Bible was his text book...Prejudice against color was rebellion against God."
BY STAR PARKER
FOUNDER & PRESIDENT
COALITION ON URBAN RENEWAL & EDUCATION
John McCain wants Americans to elect him to provide tough leadership in a dangerous world. But when it just takes some mud slung from a few left-wing websites to drive him under a rock, you have to wonder.
I'm talking about the pastor eruptions involving John Hagee and Rod Parsley.
Columnist Robert Novak wrote this week: "While the McCain campaign feels it has secured the party's conservative base, we feel that is not the case ... The McCain problem here is that he does not recognize that he has a problem."
If you doubt that McCain does indeed have a problem, just look at the Intrade.com contracts. These are futures contracts in which private investors can purchase "bets" on political contests.
The value of a contract at any point in time reflects the market's probability assessment of the outcome of that contest. A contract trading 70 cents on the dollar on Candidate A means that the market is giving Candidate A that same 70 percent chance of winning.
Because the volume of trading is large and individuals are putting up their own cash, these contracts are proving to be more accurate predictors than polls. They predicted the outcome of every Senate race in 2006 and called 49 out of 50 states correctly in the 2004 presidential election.
As of this writing, Intrade.com contracts are showing a 58 percent chance of Obama winning the presidency and a 38 percent chance of a McCain victory.
I'd say that McCain has got problems. What are they?
There's a long list. But one big one, in my view, is Novak's observation that McCain's conservative base is mush. I'd qualify this to say his evangelical Christian base, 78 percent that supported President Bush in 2004.
Was it accidental that the same day McCain disassociated himself from John Hagee, a point and a half was shaved off his Intrade.com contract?
The flak about John Hagee comes from a sermon the pastor gave years ago, recently aired on some left wing websites, including the widely read Huffington Post. In the sermon, Pastor Hagee interprets Hitler as the "hunter," in the language of a prophecy of Jeremiah that drove the Jews back to Israel.
No sooner had the left wing blogosphere entered orgiastic ecstasy with the discovery of what, for them, was inflammatory and damning material against Hagee, than John McCain's hands went up in surrender. He said he was not aware of the sermon when he accepted Hagee's endorsement and now says "No, thank you, you can have it back, sir."
Pastor Hagee has been a stalwart supporter of Israel and, through his Christians United for Israel, has raised millions in humanitarian aid for the Jewish state. He was invited to speak to the 2007 annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the nation's largest group of Americans supporting and lobbying on behalf of Israel.
Last year, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, our only Orthodox Jewish senator, spoke to Hagee's group. He called John Hagee "a man of God" and said, like Abraham, Pastor Hagee, "will be blessed because he has blessed Israel."
Now McCain has also politely returned Pastor Rod Parsley's endorsement. He's offended that Parsley called Islam "an anti-Christ religion that intends through violence to conquer the world."
Now, there appears no shortage of talk from religious leaders in the Muslim world that says exactly this. Frankly, I don't hear a lot from Muslim leaders rejecting it. And, who exactly is it we're worried about in the half hour security lines that we wait in at the airport?
Look, Israel just celebrated its 60th anniversary. There are some 14 million Jews in the world. There are 1.8 billion Muslims. There is one Jewish state and 27 countries with more than 90 percent Muslim population. Yet, the Muslim world has not given the tiny, solitary Jewish state a day of peace.
John McCain says he's a Reagan Republican. In a 1985 interview with Pat Robertson, then President Reagan said, "I am convinced this is a nation under God. And as long as we recognize that and believe that, I think He'll help us."
I wonder if John McCain believes it? I wonder if John McCain really wants to be president?
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, May 23, 2008
Well, not really.
But according to this post from NASA, climate change is occurring on Jupiter. The planet is getting warmer, so there must be SUVs, or power plants, or factories, or all of them somewhere on Jupiter...and they're almost certainly man-made.
After all, since Al Gore says natural climate change is patently impossible here on Earth, there's no way it could be happening naturally on Jupiter. Or Mars, since global warming was cited there, too, last year.
We evil humans! Exporting our environmental devastation to the rest of the solar system. We must be stopped!
Well, I see the cat is out of the bag concerning Elli Schwiesow's South Dakota independent senate run. I've been expecting a meow from the press or blogosphere or both since about Wednesday.
Elli is indeed running for the District 32 senate seat. She has been holding off until after the June 3 primary to make the official announcement, but she started gathering signatures about a week ago. I would imagine she'll have enough signatures by next week, if she doesn't already.
A great advantage Elli has in running as an independent is that she doesn't have to spend so much money in the primary...against Stan Adelstein, who has very, very deep pockets.
As Pat Powers said at the South Dakota War College, this kind of thing would not normally be a good thing for the Republican Party. However, this could be one of those odd cases where the exception is the rule.
As it stands at the moment, with Democrat Tom Katus and RINO Stan Adelstein running against each other, true Republicans haven't really had a choice. Oh, when November runs around they could choose between a Democrat and a Democrat-Lite, but that's not really a choice.
Elli, even running as an Independent, will represent the Republican values of the Republican Party better than the Republican candidate for Dist. 32 senate.
Remember that Adelstein has been a vehement opponent of core Republican values, working as hard as any liberal Democrat against protection for human life in the womb, and also voted against protecting marriage from being hijacked by homosexual activists.
Adelstein also spent $65,000 to elect Democrats in 2006, and threw his support behind Democrat Tom Katus against his party's nominee for Dist. 32 senate in 2006. He also helped form the now-defunct South Dakota Mainstream Coalition in 2005, which intended to work against core Republican values.
Elli, meanwhile, is Republican to the bone. She has held numerous Republican Party positions, supports her party's candidates, and is both socially and fiscally conservative. She is also pro-gun and cares about Native American issues. In other words, if you're looking for a solid Republican, Elli's your candidate.
Once her petition signatures are in and she's on the ballot for November, the people of Dist. 32 will have a real choice.
According to Reuters, the mayor of Sodom, er, San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, is "outraged" that San Diego might actually allow clerks loyal to truth to opt out of issuing marriage licenses to people who don't qualify for them.
Newsom apparently believes clerks should be forced to sanctify homosexual unions, whether it violates their conscience or not.
On Wednesday, San Diego County Clerk Gregory Smith said he would consider allowing clerks to bow out of processing such marriages if they had moral or religions objections.
"I was pretty shocked about all that, candidly, and pretty outraged," Newsom told Reuters in an interview.
When I hear this, the word "brazen" comes to mind, and so does the word "hubris." "Shameless," too.
The mayor, who said he will wed his actress girlfriend in a ceremony in Montana this summer, suggested that clerks who refused to marry gays in California should lose their jobs.
"If that is their job and they are going to be able to pick and choose based on their morality, then all of a sudden they are not doing their jobs," said Newsom, a Democrat thinking about running for governor to succeed Arnold Schwarzenegger.
"If you don't want to provide a marriage certificate and you've got a job that does that, then you should think twice about why you got the job in the first place and maybe you should get a new job," he continued. "Talk about a slippery slope, Mr. County Clerk down in San Diego."
These clerks didn't get a job to condone homosexuality. These clerks didn't get a job to endorse homosexual relationships. These clerks didn't get a job to reinvent society's most foundational institution. These clerks didn't get a job to call two homosexuals having sex "marriage." Those clerks didn't get a job to sanctify (if such a thing were really possible) an unnatural sexual relationship.
These clerks probably never imagined that legitimizing immorality and undermining marriage would be in their job description.
God will not be mocked, folks, and he told us clearly what's right and what's wrong, and made plain his plan for human sexuality. If Californians don't reverse this travesty, our country is cruising for a bruising.
This is a video of Dr. Ergun Caner, president of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminar, whom I mentioned last week in a post about the Evangelical Manifesto.
Dr. Caner talks about how he, a former Muslim, came to faith in Jesus Christ. Provides not only insight on the claims Jesus made, but about how Muslims view Christianity.
The student council at Robbinsdale Elementary School met after school Tuesday in the last part of a project called Cases for Kids that began in February. The students scurried around, stuffing clothes, combs, hair ties, puzzle books, markers and other items -- depending on the age and sex of the child -- into the backpacks. The backpacks were custom-made for children in grades one through five.
The backpacks will be available to Rapid City children who are removed from their homes due to domestic violence, substance abuse and other situations.
Backpacks are distributed by Rapid City's Love, INC -- or Love In the Name of Christ. The agency, begun in 2001, works to help churches and volunteers fill community needs.
Most of the students helping Tuesday took it to heart and put themselves in that situation.
You can't take it to heart and "put yourself in that situation" if government is taking your charity out of your paycheck before you even see it, whether you want to give it or not, and giving it to who-knows-who and for who-knows what.
Compassion means to bear with, or suffer with. You can't do that when government gets in the way. The socialist way robs both the giver and the receiver, not to mention that it's inefficient and often irresponsible.
Love INC is doing charity and compassion the way it's supposed to be done, the way it WAS done in America less than 100 years ago.
Love INC works with churches and other groups to help the needy in many ways, including their Clothe-A-Kid for School program, and a budgeting program that provides not only education and advice but mentoring.
I have a friend who who is a manager with a national finance company who volunteers his time with Love INCs budgeting program; it blesses him and those he helps.
Love INC is a great ministry, and they're not only in Rapid City but all around the country. If there isn't one in your area, maybe you could be the person to help get one started.
--Barack Obama's gaffes
--Obama and Iran's president
--Middle East peace
--Playboy losing money
--Bob Barr running as Libertarian
--Man sues JetBlue for flight stuck in bathroom
Thursday, May 22, 2008
It's already happening in England, and with recent court decisions like the one in California recently, it's only a matter of time before Christians in America may be forced to choose between their faith and their jobs.
From LifeSiteNews, Christians who work as council registrars are being hounded for sticking to what the know is right (that two men or two women cannot be "married"), and in some cases run out of their jobs:
Elizabeth Thatcher, a Christian council registrar from Kent in south east England, told the London Employment Tribunal that since the introduction of civil ceremonies for registered same-sex partnerships in December 2005, a "climate of fear" has grown among Christians working as marriage registrars. Christian lay registrars are said to be "terrified" that the homosexualist agenda will force them to either give up their jobs or violate their religious beliefs.
Thatcher said of a colleague, "She told me that she was terrified about herself or her authority being identified because she could be vilified or the authority put under pressure to remove her".
"I have heard of one Christian who has had to resign, but I know of others who have been accommodated," she told the tribunal.
The case being heard by the London Tribunal was called a "landmark" by the Daily Telegraph over whether employees can be required to act against their consciences. It was brought by Lillian Ladele, 47, and a Christian registrar, against Islington council in north London. Ladele says she was bullied and shunned and accused of "homophobia" for her refusal to carry out the civil partnerships.
Now more than ever we need congress to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment to protect our most sacred institution from judges who create law and a new standard of morality out of thin air. The judges in California have demonstrated that they have no respect for the law or the will of the people; only the Constitution can stand in their way.
It's truly sad that in nations that have been Christian for hundreds or thousands of years, governments are poised to force acceptance of immoral and unnatural behavior on their people.
However, in ages past and in many places around the world still, Christians have had to choose between their faith and their lives. As wrong as it is to force someone out of their job because of their conviction not to put a seal of approval on something immoral, at least it's not a matter of life and death.
Still, our prayers go out to those in England wrestling with this conflict.
Breitbart News Service has the story.
The sight of mules and horses working the grain fields was not all that rare in my youth in central Illinois. Perhaps we’ll see a return to a simpler, albeit slower, life on the farm if gas prices don’t start coming down soon.
No comment as yet from the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).
Photo: Courtesy of Nebraska State Historical Society.
The Ludwig von Mises Institute, a research and educational center of classical liberalism following the intellectual tradition of Ludwig von Mises, has a report on the economics of retail gasoline prices and the findings might surprise many who get their information mainly from CNN, the NYT and CBS.
My wife told me this morning that there had been a report on a TV news program about record profits of oil companies and she wondered how the government can allow this to happen. This from an intelligent, professional woman who is very conservative by any measure, but, like so many Americans, she is succumbing to the media's incessant clatter about oil profits, big oil, excessive profits, price gouging and the need for BIG Government to come to the rescue.
The cost of gasoline at the pump is a very complicated matter that includes world oil demand and supply, refinery capacity, regional blends of gasoline, transportation, taxes, local economies, inflation, the strength of the dollar, political alliances, commodities traders and on and on. The profit to the oil company that refines, transports and markets gasoline is a relatively small portion of the total cost per gallon. On average the profit margin for oil companies amounts to less than ten percent (9.4% nationally). At $3.78 per gallon, the profit to Big Oil is approximately 35 cents! When you fill your 20 gallon tank for $75.60, the oil company profits $7.15. Taxes in most states exceed 50 cents per gallon adding $20 to that same tank of gas!
When President Bush met with the Saudis last week he was told that they would not increase production of oil because that would not significantly lower the cost at the pump, and they are correct. The demand for oil in China and India quickly claims any excesses of oil on the market and keeps world prices high.
The solution to the energy crisis, as I’ve commented on before, is development of our resources here at home. This means telling our senators and congressmen to disregard the environmental pressure groups and allow drilling for oil and natural gas in ANWAR, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Bakken Formation in the Dakotas, building of new refineries, development of clean coal technology, and nuclear power for electricity to some of our major metropolitan areas. Using current and developing technologies, I believe that this could all be done with very little impact on our environment, but with major impact on energy costs and foreign dependence.
Politicians, especially during campaign season, always try to put on their best face, so it can be difficult to ascertain where a candidate really stands and what they really believe.
Barack Obama talks a lot about "hope" and "change," but he's come up a little short in the "tangible idea" department.
Michelle Obama is very good at exposing some of the radical liberal positions held in the Obama household.
First, back in February, she told us that "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country." Me? I couldn't count the times as an adult and as a child I've been really proud of my country. Hmmmm.
Now yesterday LifeNews reports that Michelle Obama defended partial birth abortion in a 2004 fundraising letter she wrote for her husband.
"The fact remains, with no provision to protect the heath of the mother, this ban on a legitimate medical procedure is clearly unconstitutional and must be overturned," Michelle Obama writes in the letter.
Legitimate? What possible medical legitimacy could there be for partial birth abortion?
In case you're not familiar with the hideous partial birth abortion procedure, I've included a graphic in this post, and you can find out more here.
The baby is delivered breech, which is not a "healthy" idea under any circumstance, but it is necessary to do what the partial birth abortion provides. You see, the abortionist stops delivering the baby while the head is still inside the mother, then cuts a hole in the back of the baby's head, scrambles the poor child's brain, then finishes delivering the dead baby from its mother's body.
You see, for lack of a few inches, the baby would be fully delivered outside its mother's body...and then it would be a "person." For the lack of those few inches, it has been considered "legal" (and apparently "legitimate" by some) to murder an otherwise healthy, almost-delivered child.
This barbarity is what the Obamas approve of.
So this is my first post on this wonderful blog, so please don't be too harsh on me.
Sen. McCain, and Republican Presidential hopeful will have a special meeting this weekend with 3 possible Vice-President hopefuls. Read it all here.
It looks as if the three front runners are Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, Louisiana Gov Bobby Jindal, and former Presidential hopeful Mitt Romeny.
McCain looks as if he is trying to beef up his "Liberal Republican" image with some of these choices. Rommey is an obvious pick, his attempt to woo conservative voters worked in many states, and if worst came to worst it would lock up the Mormon vote for McCain.
Crist is an interesting choice, he is a popular Gov, but really has not done anything nationally to speak of. I have only heard of him on very few occasions, and I usually have one eye on Drudge Report, and the other on Fox News. Crist would help McCain pick up Florida's 25 delegates, but not much else.
Jindal is my personal favorite, and the dark horse. Bobby Jindal is a young, smart passionate true conservative from a very blue state. He won governor of a very corrupt and natural disaster ravaged state by promising true conservative values, and to clean up the government and the state in ever sense of the word. Jindal would be a campaign work horse, and would also help win young voters and minority votes. Both of which could come in handy if Mr. Hussein Obama gets the Democrat nod.
So with one under my belt, please tear me apart...
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Apparently a full-court (literally) press against normal human sexuality is under way.
A couple of weeks ago, the California Supreme Court manufactured a right for homosexuals to call their unions "marriage."
Now, according to CNS News, the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals in San Francisco (where else) has, in a split decision, ruled that the policy on homosexuals in the military implemented by President Bill Clinton is insufficient for discharging homosexuals from the military.
In a sense, I would agree that we should get rid of the stupid "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy which allows homosexuals to serve in the military as long as they "don't tell" military authorities about it. We should instead return to the way things were prior to Clinton's meddling when it was recognized that homosexuality was incompatible with military service.
There were (and are) a number of reasons homosexuality is incompatible with military service. Despite society's openness about homosexuality today, there remain a number of homosexuals who don't want to come out about their sexual preference due to not wanting mom and dad to know about it, or whatever. This secretive lifestyle leaves them open to blackmail by foreign agents, which can place lives and national security at risk.
Military service also often requires living in close quarters with other soldiers/sailors/airmen/Marines. Even stateside, military people often have to live 2 or more to a room. We wouldn't force a female soldier to live in the same room as a male soldier, sharing a bathroom and common bedroom with him; why should we force a young man to share a room with another man who may see him as an object of sexual opportunity? Overseas, especially in combat or other deployed areas, the instance of living in close quarters is multiplied. Our military members have enough to worry about from the enemy without being distracted by sexual politics and social engineering.
Military service is not a right; it's a privilege. People are denied the opportunity to serve in the military, and are discharged from the military, for many reasons, including physical and mental infirmities that render them more of a liability than an asset for mission readiness. People are also frequently denied military service and discharged for behavioral and attitudinal problems; those reasons can hinder their own readiness for military service, and prove detrimental to the readiness of those they serve with.
The defense of our nation is too important to undermine with more liberal social engineering. Americans need to stand up against this kind of judicial activism...with impeachment of judges, if necessary.
An AP story at the Sioux Falls page of the Examiner says U.S. District Judge Lawrence Piersol of Sioux Falls has approved a settlement that would allow news agencies to conduct exit polling within 100 ft of polling places.
Several news agencies had filed a lawsuit earlier this month, claiming that if they were forced to conduct exit polls farther than 100 feet from the polls, accuracy would be compromised. SDCL 12-18-3 bars such activity.
The agreement prevents the state from enforcing only the part of the law that barred exit polling within 100 feet of polling places. Other portions of the law that prevent campaigning or other disruptive behavior near voting places will remain in effect.
The article says South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long went along with the agreement because courts have ruled against similar restrictions in other states.
This video is from today's oil exec testimony before Congress.
Until Congress quits acting like a bunch of environmentalist wackos and Marxists, opening up ANWR and other oil production and clearing the way for several new refineries in the United States, I'm not interested in hearing any more talk of taxing oil companies.
That will only get passed along to the consumer and fill the coffers of government for more worthless programs that bilk the taxpayer.
Even if he has a chance to implement it, Barack Obama's radical vision for a completely new society won't be enough for homosexual activists.
You're going to have to LIKE IT.
A couple of years ago, judicial oligarchs in Massachussets torpedoed marriage in that state. Now a different group of judicial activists have done the same in California. And if the American people decide to elect Barack Obama to the presidency in November (which stands a good chance of happening), he has a similar plan for the United States.
This may sound melodramatic, but while the gutting and destruction of marriage and family would be devastating enough to our culture, even our foundational and Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms are likely to go down the same drain as the family.
Nothing less than our freedom of speech and freedom of religion are on the line.
Americans for Truth About Homosexuality points to the disturbing comments made by homosexual activist Sean Kosofsky lately:
Michigan’s largest homosexual activist group says once marriage is legally redefined to include homosexual couples, business owners and even news media outlets who refuse to recognize such marriages should be jailed or sued and “publicly slapped,” a Jewish and openly bisexual columnist for the Los Angeles Daily News reported Monday.
The piece also says this about Kosofsky's organization:
“The Triangle Foundation openly admits homosexual activists’ intentions, once they gain sufficient political power, to impose their radical social agenda on America by brute force, trampling cherished American values such as religious freedom, freedom of speech, academic freedom, and even freedom of the press if it stands in their way,” Glenn said.
The Los Angeles Daily News has more on Kosofsky's comments (and others):
What happens if a traditionally religious business owner wants to extend his "marriage discount" only to couples married in his eyes? Sean Kososky of Michigan's largest gay-rights group, the Triangle Foundation, says, "If you are a public accommodation and you are open to anyone on Main Street, that means you must be open to everyone on Main Street. If they don't do it, that's contempt and they will go to jail."
Teaching in school that marriage is between a man and a woman? Can't do it!
Sharon Malheiro, a lawyer and LGBT activist from Des Moines affiliated with the state's gay-marriage lobby, ONE-IOWA, told me if a teacher in a marriage-equality state taught that marriage is between a man and a woman, "then it becomes a job performance issue," and the school district should take appropriate action.
If a newspaper doesn't walk the party line and repeat the fantasy that two men or two women can constitute a "marriage," they must be slammed with the law, too.
Michael Taylor-Judd, the president of the Legal Marriage Alliance of Washington state, said if a newspaper writes that a given same-sex marriage wasn't really a marriage, "it is certainly in the realm of possibility for someone to bring a (libel) suit, and quite possibly to be successful." Kososky agreed: "I would be sympathetic to some damages. They need to be slapped publicly."
No freedom of the press, either (not that most of the liberal "mainstream" media will mind, anyway).
Incidentally, this piece in the Daily News was written by David Benkof, who is himself a homosexual. Even he has the intellectual integrity to find the California decision and these comments troubling.
Actually, this isn't just some hypothetical future event we're talking about here. Harassment for those who don't march in lockstep with the homosexual agenda is already a reality.
Americans for Truth About Homosexuality has cataloged a few cases around the world (and even here in the States) where people and groups are being harassed by the government for having the audacity to continue believing in morality:
* Swedish Pastor Ake Green in 2004 was sentenced to 30 days in jail for preaching a sermon in which he defined homosexual behavior as sinful and harmful to society. http://www.akegreen.org/
* Baptist Press reported in 2005: “A Catholic bishop in Canada is under investigation by a government agency for condemning ‘gay marriage’… The bishop, Fred Henry of Calgary, is being investigated by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for comments he made about homosexuality in both a letter to parishioners and a Calgary Sun newspaper column. Two homosexuals filed the complaints.” http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=20716
* The Irish Times reported in 2003: “Clergy and bishops who distribute the Vatican’s latest publication describing homosexual activity as ‘evil’ could face prosecution under incitement to hatred legislation. …Those convicted under the Act can face jail terms of up to six months.”
* The London Daily Telegraph reported in 2006: “New Government proposals on equality could require clergy to bless homosexual ‘weddings’ or face prosecution, the Church of England said yesterday. It said the proposed regulations could undermine official teaching and require Christians to act against their religious convictions.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1520849/Church-%27could-be-forced-to-bless-gay-weddings%27.html
* Catholic Charities in Boston was forced by a state “sexual orientation” law to either process the adoption of children to homosexual couples, a direct violation of Vatican policy, or abandon their century-old adoption referral services altogether. They chose the latter. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions
* The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix newspaper was ordered by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal to pay three homosexual men $1,500 each after the newspaper agreed to run an ad that featured Bible verses critical of homosexual behavior. “As the Star-Phoenix lawyer said in his closing statement (before the Tribunal), ‘A Human Rights ruling against the Star-Phoenix and Mr. Owens could limit freedom of speech in the media, in churches and in classrooms.’” http://www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/1999_Sept_Oct/article_7.html
* A British couple were questioned by police on possible “hate crime” charges after they wrote a letter-to-the-editor of their local newspaper criticizing city officials for distributing brochures at city hall promoting homosexual behavior. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lancashire/4555406.stm
* The London Daily Telegraph reported last month: “A Christian couple who have taken in 28 children have been forced to give up being foster parents after they refused to promote homosexuality. Vincent Matherick, 65, and his 61-year-old wife Pauline were told by social services that they had to comply with legislation requiring them to treat homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567160/Christian-foster-parents-condemn-’gay-laws’.html
* A British Anglican bishop in February was fined for refusing to hire an openly homosexual man as a church youth minister. http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08021104.html
* The London Daily Telegraph reported in 2003: “A bishop who angered homosexuals by suggesting they seek a psychiatric cure is to be investigated by police to see if his outspoken views amount to a criminal offence, it emerged yesterday.”
* Eleven Christians in Philadelphia — including two grandmothers in their 70’s, one white and one African-American — were arrested and charged with “ethnic intimidation” under Pennsylvania’s “hate crimes” law when they tried to read Bible verses out loud during a homosexual street festival. They faced a cumulative 47 years in prison had they been convicted. http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=6542&department=CFI&categoryid=nation
* A New Mexico Christian photographer was fined $6,600 for refusing on religious grounds to photograph a homosexual marriage-like “commitment” ceremony.
* Catholic bishops in Belgium and Spain were sued in 2004 by homosexual activist groups for making public statements in opposition to homosexual behavior and homosexual “marriage.”
* Boston public school teachers were threatened with termination if they failed to portray so-called homosexual “marriage” in a positive light. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=27201
If you think that what happened in Mass. and Calif. can't be forced on us in South Dakota or one of the other states that have marriage defined in their constitutions, think again.
A South Dakota pro-homosexual advocacy group, Equality South Dakota, is already making campaign contributions to several pro-homosexual Democrats in the state primary. Contributions to pro-homosexual Republicans may soon follow in the general election if not the primary.
And a liberal South Dakota blog is already calling for the repeal of Amendment C, passed by the South Dakota legislature and at the ballot box in 2006 to define marriage in our state constitution as between a man and a woman.
Even if marriage doesn't get overturned (or should I say, turned upside down) by efforts within our state, the federal courts could suddenly "find" a new right in the U.S. Constitution that trumps our measly state constitutions.
Our country is embroiled in a civil war right now over the values our nation holds dear. Though the weapons are different, the stakes are no less critical. And with no defined lines of geography, it's being fought in every state, in every community.
I am reminded of a line from the Mel Gibson movie "The Patriot" about the American Revolution:
But mark my words, this war will not be fought on the frontier, or on some distant battlefield, but amongst us. Among our homes. Our children will learn of it with their own eyes. And the innocent will die with the rest of us.
There may not be gunshot wounds, but there will be casualties. Casualties of innocence, casualties of freedom, casualties of good homes, casualties of well-adjusted children, casualties of disease, and casualties of the soul.
The time is now folks (if it isn't already too late).
If you value the institution of marriage, now is the time to take action.
If you value family, now is the time to take action.
If you value freedom of the press, now is the time to take action.
If you value your freedom of speech, now is the time to take action.
If you value freedom of religion, now is the time to take action.
If you won't, then who will be to blame for the demise of all these rights and institutions?
CNS News highlights the radical agenda Barack Obama has for marriage, the American family and our society in general.
In a statement on homosexual issues on Obama's campaign website, Obama says we should "fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples."
We need a Federal Marriage Amendment to prevent the overturn of the DOMA (as happened in California recently when the state Supreme Court decided it knows better than the citizens of that state, and manufactures a right for homosexuals to call their unions "marriage."
In the meantime, however, the federal DOMA may be the only thing preventing states from being forced to recognize such perversions of the concept of "marriage" in state like Massachusetts and soon California. Obama would see that barrier removed.
Some of Obama's congressional colleagues aren't ready to enter this "brave new world" with him, though.
From CNS News:
When Cybercast News Service asked Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who has been a vocal supporter of the Obama campaign, if he could support Obama in an attempt to repeal DOMA, he replied that he could not. "No. I support the Defense of Marriage Act. Period."
Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.) also told Cybercast News Service that he wouldn't support the repeal of DOMA.
But that isn't the only radical societal engineering Obama has planned for the United States if he becomes president in November.
The same statement on Obama's website about homosexual issues says Obama has already cosponsored legislation to "expand federal hate crimes law to include crimes perpetrated because of sexual orientation or gender identity." Apparently prosecuting a criminal for assault or murder isn't enough; we must penalize them for their thoughts, as well.
Obama also wants to "include sexual orientation and gender identity" in workplace discrimination laws. So what if you don't want cross-dressing men working in your Christian daycare, your Christian bookstore, or your church. Your moral convictions and the impression your church/business presents must take a backseat to people's sexual proclivities.
Obama also opposes the aforementioned Federal Marriage Amendment, which would protect the institution of marriage at the Constitutional level: "Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples." In other words, marriage would have absolutely no meaning or value whatsoever.
He would also open the door for homosexuals to serve in the U.S. military: "Obama believes we need to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve." Our military, entrusted with the defense of our nation, would become a part of the entire social experiment being perpetrated on America. Men and women would be forced to share cramped, intimate quarters with those who see them as objects of sexual opportunity. Apparently national defense is a secondary consideration to the advancement of homosexuality.
No wonder Barack Obama was the #1 most liberal senator in 2007. Between his unlimited support for abortion and his desire to render marriage and family meaningless, who could possibly surpass Obama's vision of an America completely re-engineered into a liberal humanist state?
KOTA is reporting that an agreement has been reached between the state of South Dakota and several news organizations who sued a couple of weeks ago to conduct exit polling in the upcoming June 3 primary.
Exit polling with 100 feet of polling places is prohibited by SDCL 12-18-3.
Not many details are provided in the KOTA report beyond this statement:
The proposed agreement was filed yesterday in federal court, but Judge Lawrence Piersol has not yet signed it.
American Minute from William J. Federer
The American Red Cross was organized MAY 21, 1881, by Clara Barton, a schoolteacher who had moved to Washington at the outbreak of the Civil War.
Clara Barton distributed relief supplies to wounded soldiers and, at the request of President Lincoln, aided in searching for missing men.
Clara Barton helped in hospitals in Cuba during the Spanish-American War and in Europe during the Franco-German war, working with Henri Dunant, founder of the International Red Cross.
On May 18, 1918, at the opening of the Second Red Cross Drive in New York City, President Woodrow Wilson recognized those in this great service, stating: "Being members of the American Red Cross...a great fraternity and fellowship which extends all over the world...this cross which these ladies bore here today is an emblem of Christianity itself..."
Woodrow Wilson continued: "When you think of this, you realize how the people of the United States are being drawn together into a great intimate family whose heart is being used for the service of the soldiers not only, but for the long night of suffering and terror, in order that they and men everywhere may see the dawn of a day of righteousness and justice and peace."
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
From today's mailbag:
For immediate release - May 20, 2008
CONTACT: Joel Dykstra
Sioux Falls, SD - Another successful stretch of fundraising has pushed Republican U.S. Senate candidate Joel Dykstra's campaign contributions past the $250,000 mark heading into the June 3 Primary.
In his campaign finance report filed with the Federal Election Commission 20 days before the Primary, Dykstra reported fundraising receipts totaling $49,993 for the period since the previous report. This brings Primary funds to a total of $253,667 to date. An additional $10,300 has been received towards the General Election campaign.
Dykstra said he is extremely pleased with the pace of recent fundraising efforts, since the nearly $50,000 was raised in only about 45 days as the last reporting period ended March 31. "The figures tell the story. Our fundraising efforts are strong going into the Primary and I am confident we will see even more support after the nomination is decided and we move into summer," he said.
The trend of campaign donations also continues to show that grassroots South Dakota voters from across the state are financially supporting Dykstra as their next U.S. Senator.
Dykstra's campaign has scored a number of other successes over the last 45 days with the endorsements of an overwhelming majority of South Dakota Republican Legislators, and the opening of a new field office in Sioux Falls. Dykstra said, "We continue to be focused on our first goal which is winning the Primary. However, we're also working towards other milestones in the last five months of the campaign before the November victory."
From the Fox News Political Grapevine 5/19/2008
Also: Thousands of scientists reject man-made global warming concensus; Prince Charles is HOT
Former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton slammed Barack Obama for his policies of appeasement.
--President Bush's speech to the Knesset
-- China's earthquake and Al Gore
--Polar bears on the federal threatened list
--Same-sex marriage in California
--Ted Kennedy's seizures
--Ryan Seacrest to replace Larry King?
--a possible Barack Obama veep pick
BY BOB ELLIS
This is the third installment in a 8-part series examining the DVD "For the Bible Tells Me So."
Introduction - Why the DVD Deserves a Closer Look
Part 1 - Building Sympathy Without Exegisis
Part 2 - The Bible as a 'Truth Buffet'
One of the things about the Bible stressed by the clergy in "For the Bible Tells Me So" (FTBTMS) is the contention that the Bible and passages within it can be interpreted in many ways.
While it is true that each of us, due to our experiences and education, can come away with some different insights on a particular passage, a given passage really only has one overriding meaning. Or perhaps more directly, while there may be a number of truths contained within a particular passage, none of those facts or truths will present conclusions that are contradictory to other truths within the passage--or the rest of the Bible, for that matter.
For example, it is incorrect to reasonably say that one person might read, "Thou shalt not steal" and come away with the truth that "you're not supposed to steal," while another person may read it and reasonably come away with a different "truth" which says, "Thou shalt not steal unless you really need it" or “Thou shalt not steal unless it’s from a rich person” or "Thou shalt not steal unless it's Tuesday."
Reverend Richard Holloway, the retired Bishop of Edinburgh, claims in the film that "Biblical literalism," where God's instructions in the Bible are taken literally, is a modern view that only came about in the early Twentieth Century.
Rev. Holloway's assertion is at odds with the Old Testament Jewish view, who took God's word very seriously and very literally. God commanded the Jews in Deuteronomy chapter 6 to constantly examine and discuss and surround themselves with His word. The Jews came to take that so literally that they wore God's word on their heads in phylacteries, and took God's command to tithe so seriously that they even gave a tenth of the produce from their spice gardens.
Jesus also apparently took the Bible literally, since he repeatedly quoted it and taught it's application in our lives, including his statement in Matthew chapter 19 on God's design for human sexuality: "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
He didn't say, "Ahh, God didn't really mean what He said in the Old Testament about males and females, and being faithful to your spouse. He just wants you to be happy. So have sex with whoever you’d like"
The assertion that "Biblical literalism" is a recent phenomenon also goes against the people in and writers of the New Testament, who by their very words and actions indicated that they took God's word very seriously and very literally. This continued throughout the 2,000 years of Christian history, on through the Great Awakenings of the 18th and 19th Centuries.
On the contrary, it is a recent phenomenon that several Biblical scholars and some who call themselves Christians have taken the position that the Bible is NOT to be taken literally, that it is only allegorical and only "contains" some moral truths.
Reverend Joan Brown Campbell of the Chautauqua Institution attempts to mock Biblical literalism: "There is a text that says 'You must take all you have and give it to the poor.'" She is referring to the passage in Mark chapter 10 where the rich young ruler came to Jesus and Jesus told him to do this.
If you’ve actually read the passage you’ll note, however, that this was not a commandment given to all people; Jesus told the rich young man to do this when that man asked him, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus was not telling him this because giving away all your possessions is necessary to go to heaven, or because all wealthy people must give up all they have to get to heaven (many in the Bible were wealthy and God never commanded it of them). Rather, Jesus told him this because the man came to Christ, proud of his moral accomplishments and was essentially looking for the good rabbi to pat him on the back in front of people for being such a good person. Jesus, knowing what truly motivated the man and what was in his heart, cut through all the pride and pretension to expose that the man loved wealth and status more than he loved God.
Like any text, the Bible must be read contextually. This is not to say, as some claimed in this DVD, that we can "adjust" the moral imperatives of the Bible to suit our modern times or our fleshly appetites. Rather, it means that we must read the entire passage to understand whether this deals with a particular instance or is a universal truth; who is the subject of the passage; what is the spiritual principle being communicated; and what is the overriding truth.
Even personal correspondence must be read contextually. You wouldn't read a love letter from a spouse who had been away for a while which said, "I'm dying to see you" as meaning, "My heart is about to quit beating and my life on earth will literally end if I don't see you."
Likewise, you wouldn't interpret someone at the dinner table who has a heart attack and says, "I'm dying" as meaning he really doesn't like the food.
As we would pervert the statements made by the hypothetical people in these examples, so we dishonor God if we try to twist the meaning of what He’s told us in order to suit our own agenda.
If you're a parent, have you ever had a child try to twist something you said into a license for behavior that you clearly did not approve? Have they ever tried to exploit loopholes and come up with tortured interpretations to justify their disobedience? Has an employee or subordinate ever done it? Did that make you angry? I wonder how God feels when we try to twist and disregard His commandments to issue a license to ourselves for immorality?
Rev. Holloway also employs a little class envy to rile viewers against Christians who have taken a stand for morality in culture by pointing out they are "capitalists" and citing figures in the millions of dollars as if that were their personal income, rather than the revenue of their ministries.
Some of these ministries provide a multitude of services to thousands of people around the world, through the use of printed materials, radio and television broadcasts, service to needy people, and a legion of other expenditures--all of which can cost millions of dollars. Yet Holloway's intent is obviously to lead us to believe every cent that comes in to the organization goes into the pocket of the ministry leader.
In Part 4 next week: this film which contends to be about what the Bible says about homosexuality takes a stab at what science says about homosexuality...or is it what sympathetic researchers say about homosexuality?
Monday, May 19, 2008
From today's mailbag:
Sioux Falls, SD -- Republican U.S. Senate Candidate Joel Dykstra of Canton will continue to make several campaign and fundraising stops this week. He will also be speaking at the Minnehaha Lincoln Republican Women at their monthly meeting on Tuesday evening.
Event details, times and locations follow:
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Minnehaha County GOP Women's Meeting
Sioux Falls, S.D.
6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
I'm no John McCain fan, but Barack Obama would be downright dangerous at the helm of the United States. Don't believe me?
"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela? These countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose any serious threat to us," he told a crowd at a campaign stop over the weekend
911 was perpetrated by 19 hijackers.
And though I don't have the latest population figures at my fingertips, the last I checked, Iran's population was north of 70 million. I know with relativism being the order of the day a lot of things are in play, but I'm reasonably sure 70 million is still a little bit more than 19.
Nearly 3,000 Americans (most of them civilians) were killed by these 19 hijackers on 911, more than the military losses at Pearl Harbor. I'm sure the families of those 2,974 people killed would consider even 19 terrorists a "serious threat."
Iran is already the worlds biggest backer of terrorism, and are already supplying men and weapons being used to kill American soldiers in Iraq.
And they may have nuclear weapons by the time Obama has a chance to sit in the White House, if the American people are reckless enough to elect him.
Don't pose a serious threat to us? "Serious threat" in Obama's book is a LOT different than what it means in mine...
OneNewsNow reports that a California pastor has been cleared by the IRS after endorsing Mike Huckabee last year.
Since the endorsement came in the form of a letter from the pastor (and not directly from the pulpit) and on his radio show, the IRS ruled that it was a "personal endorsement."
"We're going to keep on fighting," says Drake. "We're going to keep on doing what we've been doing -- we're going to keep on preaching against sin, we're going to keep on preaching against bad politicians. And if the IRS doesn't like that, that's too bad," he states.
That's the kind of spirit we need from America's churches. And hopefully we'll see a lot more of that on Pulpit Freedom Sunday this September 28.
President Bush's statement last week before the Israeli Knesset warning of the dangers of appeasement highlighted the foreign policy naivete of Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama...without even mentioning him.
Though Obama has already said that as president he would "sit down" and apparently have tea with the world's largest backer of terrorism (Iran, in case you missed it), he and his fellow Democrats were quick to protest that Obama was not, in fact, an appeaser...even though Obama was not named in the speech and the White House says Obama was not in the mind of President Bush when he made the speech.
But what is appeasement? Every administration has diplomats, don't they? Can you have diplomacy without appeasement? Jed Babbin believes so, and I wholeheartedly agree with him.
Is Obama an appeaser? Of course. But why? What is an appeaser? An appeaser may be a diplomat, but all diplomats are not appeasers.
Diplomats buy and sell; appeasers just give things away. And that difference is something Barack Obama has yet to learn.
An appeaser is someone who is willing to compromise his nation’s interests without obtaining an equal or greater concession from the adversary. History’s most famous appeaser, Neville Chamberlain, gave the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in 1938 and received nothing in return. Having been appeased -- and thus given time to further build his military might -- Hitler attacked a year later, conquering Poland and igniting the largest and most murderous war in history.
In Churchill’s more literary definition, an appeaser is someone who feeds the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
If I might risk adding to Babbin's excellent summation, appeasers engage in diplomacy simply for the sake of maintaining the illusion of peace. Good diplomacy, however, aims to preserve national interest and security...and walks away (Reykjavik) from the table when no reasonable and verifiable concessions can be obtained from the enemy.
The Oregon Petition is getting some fresh press...not that it ever got much to begin with. It is covered in Saturday's National Post from Canada, and Michelle Malkin calls attention to the National Press Club release of these names today.
In case you haven't heard about it, the Oregon Petition was started by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in 2001.
According to the National Post, this is the contention of those who have signed the petition:
Not only did they dispute that there was convincing evidence of harm from carbon dioxide emissions, they asserted that Kyoto itself would harm the global environment because "increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
As the National Post article examines, the apostles of global warming have tried to cast doubt on the veracity of the petition, but the only instance of genuine fakery was planted by Greenpeace. Claims of duplicate names have been proven to be different scientists with the same name (do you know how many Bob Ellis' there are out there? and not all as famous as me), and some scientists who had the same name as famous movie stars have been verified to be the same name as real scientists.
So how many signatures are there to the Oregon Petition? 50? 100? 1000? Keep climbing.
Using a subset of the mailing list of American Men and Women of Science, a who's who of Science, Robinson mailed out his solicitations through the postal service, requesting signed petitions of those who agreed that Kyoto was a danger to humanity. The response rate was extraordinary, "much, much higher than anyone expected, much higher than you'd ordinarily expect," he explained. He's processed more than 31,000 at this point, more than 9,000 of them with PhDs, and has another 1,000 or so to go -- most of them are already posted on a Web site at petitionproject.org.
Does this look like Al Gore's "consensus?" Not even close.
Are we really willing to mortgage our livelihood today and our future tomorrow on some liberal anti-capitalist fantasy? I'm not. Not even close.
Today's Wall Street Journal features an editorial on "Medicaid Money Laundering." Did you know your government was using Medicaid to launder money?
The swindle works like this: A state overpays state-run health-care providers, such as county hospitals or nursing homes, for Medicaid benefits far in excess of its typical rates. Then the federal government reimburses the state for "half" of the inflated bills. Once the state bags the extra matching funds, the hospital is required to rebate the extra money it received at the scam's outset. Cash thus makes a round trip from states to providers and back to the states – all to dupe Washington.
Is this something legitimate that government (at any level) should be doing? If one of those evil corporations were doing this, what would we call it?
The right word for this is fraud. A corporation caught in this kind of self-dealing – faking payments to extract billions, then laundering the money – would be indicted. In fact, a new industry of contingency-fee consultants has sprung up to help states find and exploit the "ambiguities" in Medicaid's regulatory wasteland. All the feds can do is notice loopholes when they get too expensive and close them, whereupon the cycle starts over.
But shouldn't someone be doing something to stop this fraud (i.e. theft) being perpetrated on the American taxpayer? Our elected representatives, whose job it is to protect our interest in Washington, perhaps? Don't count on it.
The state governors squealed, and congress forbade prosecution for this crime. The article says the moratorium on prosecution runs out this month, but congress looks set to continue the fraud at least until Bush leaves office.
Plutocracy? Evil corporations? Look no further than your own government. When private companies do evil and break the law, it's wrong. But when our government, the agency empowered to enforce what's right, perpetrates fraud, then what?
Who will guard the guardians? The people of the United States are supposed to do that, but they're too busy going to ballgames, fiddling with their MP3 players, watching Survivor: Third Moon of Jupiter or American Idol, and talking on the cell phone to guard our nation's virtue...or their own wealth.
The loss of morality in a society doesn't just result in things like killing unborn children and normalization of sexual perversion. It also includes things like fraud, waste, abuse, misappropriation, nest-feathering, bribery and so on...from our government. Our government is made up of people, after all, with the same moral weaknesses as any of us.
Want more responsible corporations? Want responsible, accountable government? Start demanding a higher (objective) moral standard from each of us going all the way up, starting with the guy in the mirror.
American Minute from William J. Federer
The invincible Spanish Armada set sail MAY 19, 1588, to conquer England.
Queen Elizabeth relied on Sir Francis Drake and his smaller, faster vessels. Drake ingeniously floated burning ships at night into the anchored Spanish fleet, dispersing them in a panic. Aided by gale force winds half of Spain's Armada was eventually wrecked.
Had England lost, there would have been no Pilgrims, no New England, and no United States.
In 1776, Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations: "The Spaniards, by virtue of the first discovery, claimed all America as their own, and...such was...the terror of their name, that the greater part of the other nations of Europe were afraid to establish themselves in any other part of that great continent...But...the defeat...of their Invincible Armada...put it out of their power to obstruct any longer the settlements of the other European nations. In the course of the 17th century...English, French, Dutch, Danes, and Swedes...attempted to make some settlements in the new world."
A coin minted in Holland in 1588 had engraved on one side Spanish ships sinking and on the other side men kneeling under the inscription "Man Proposeth, God Disposeth."
By Gordon Garnos
AT ISSUE: During this oil price crisis, one of South Dakota's leading industries, ethanol production, has somehow become its opponents' whipping boy. In just the past couple of months oil prices have shot to the moon and food prices have already left the launching pad. Through a major propaganda project, somehow, ethanol is being wrongly blamed for all of this inflation.
While ethanol may be a player in all of this, to put the entire blame on ethanol for those skyrocketing prices is as wrong as wrong can be.
A SCENARIO: When milk and other groceries arrive at the local store, they are generally delivered by truck. When gasoline arrives at the gas station for resale for your car, it is delivered by truck. When new clothing arrives at the haberdashery, it arrived by truck. When diesel fuel arrives at your farm, it, too, arrived by truck. At this point I think you know where I am going with this. Those trucks are not going to move a mile without something to feed them. And that is fuel, expensive fuel that may have come from across the world.
To pay for that increased price of fuel, the price of milk and other groceries have gone up. The gasoline at the pump has been increased, etc. I believe you get the picture. According to the Energy Information Administration, in the past year diesel fuel prices have increased 49 percent and gasoline prices have gone up over 18 percent.
Where does ethanol play in all of this? The renewable fuel standard, set by Congress, mandates the nation's oil companies blend at least 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol with their gasoline by 2015 and 21 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol by 2022. Consequently, the oil refineries, food manufacturers and other groups feeling the sting of all this say, "Aha! It's ethanol's fault!" And we are being led to believe this drivel.
THERE HASN'T BEEN a propaganda machine greased so well since Hitler's propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, went to work.
At the same time, as I have said, ethanol is not entirely blameless. One study points to ethanol as the culprit for $6 corn a bushel from $2 a bushel a couple of years ago. The study found that 31 percent of the total price increase was related to ethanol production. The rest of it, 69 percent was connected to several factors, such as the increased demand for food from developing countries, the devaluing of the American dollar on the world market, and, we can't forget for a minute, those commodities speculators.
Brian Woldt, a Lake County farmer and a member of the board of managers of the Dakota Ethanol plant near Wentworth, put all of this in prospective in a recent article in the Sioux Falls Argus Leader. "Woldt says when people accuse ethanol of driving up prices he points out that when corn is fed to a cow, one-third of the energy will come out of the animal's mouth as CO2, one-third is absorbed as nutrients and one-third will be expelled as starch in the waste.
"YOU TAKE THAT same pound of corn and run it through an ethanol plant, you get the same third of CO2, the same third of nutrients that can be fed to animals, and the starch is a fuel producer.
"When they understand the real feed value of the corn is remaining, the light bulb comes on. But that doesn't get much coverage."
There's no doubt about it, ethanol lately has been getting a bad rap in the national media. This all adds up to more problems for our farmers, our ethanol production facilities, their investors and the lawmakers, both in South Dakota and Washington, D.C., who have made the laws that have helped this industry get off the ground.
ALL THIS BAD press about ethanol could also very well scare off the investors of the future who will empower today's ethanol plants as well as those of tomorrow to get this industry away from corn to using nonedible elements like corn cobs, corn stocks, grasses of various kinds, wood chips and maybe even municipal wastes that end up today in our landfills (dumps).
When I think of ethanol I think of that 10 percent of the fuel in my car's tank is 10 percent less gasoline that comes from an industry that finds an alternative fuel so offensive to its profits. Nationally, about five percent of the motor vehicle fuel is ethanol. because of the recently passed federal legislation, that five percent is going to jump to about 30 percent. Yes.
There's a reason for this--it's called the renewable fuel standard and we can't let that be taken away from us.
No. It isn't the ethanol that is driving up prices. Unfortunately, people are not thinking very far ahead not to realize what the real culprit is. Its name is pure and simple. Oil. As a friend of mine often writes, "Think about it."....
Gordon Garnos was long-time editor of the Watertown Public Opinion and recently retired after 39 years with that newspaper. Garnos, a lifelong resident of South Dakota except for his military service in the U.S. Air Force, was born and raised in Presho.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
From Saint Louis Today, Phyllis Schlafly was honored at Washington University last week with an honorary doctorate of humane letters.
Schlafly, a columnist and founder of Eagle Forum, has worked tirelessly for decades the health of American families and the well being of this nation. Yet this is how she was treated:
Some applauded while Schlafly was hooded. But about a third of the graduating students draped in the school’s green and black robes turned their backs to her, along with some faculty members sitting on the stage behind her. Many family members in the audience also took part.
Three faculty members made the extra point of walking off the stage and then turning their backs from the audience.
A reaction like this might be appropriate if a university had invited or honored someone like, say Saddam Hussein, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or Kim Jong-Il or the leader of some terrorist group. Yet somehow I doubt that there would be the slightest bit of angst over such a guest at this school.
I had the honor of meeting Schlafly last October in Washington D.C. She is such a nice lady, and knowing that makes this childish act by these children (both students and faculty who never grew up) seem all the more pathetic.
It may sound as if I'm trying to be sensational when I speak fearfully about the demise of our culture and our nation, but I'm really not. When we have colleges that on one hand applaud anti-Americanism and people who vehemently hate our country, and on the other hand treat a patriot who has worked so hard for the good of our country like this, I cannot help but fear that we aren't going to make it much longer.
A nation of people who so loathe what is good and right, a people that so loathes others who work for the health of our society, a people that so loathes its own origins and its own self...how can a people like that survive for more than a handful of generations?