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?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Russert Mourned After Collapsing in NBC's Newsroom (Update1)

Russert Mourned After Collapsing in NBC's Newsroom (Update1)

By Kristin Jensen and Julianna Goldman

June 14 (Bloomberg) -- Tim Russert, NBC News's Washington bureau chief, who collapsed and died in his Washington newsroom yesterday, was remembered as a skilled political analyst whose gregarious nature charmed his audience and the politicians who were subjected to his relentless questioning. He was 58.

Russert became famous for his penetrating interviews on the Sunday morning talk show ``Meet the Press,'' a program he hosted longer than anyone else, according to former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw. Russert was also a best-selling author whose books included a tribute to his father, ``Big Russ and Me.''

Brokaw announced the death on the air, telling viewers about Russert's childhood growing up in Buffalo, New York, his love for his family and his work ethic. Brokaw said Russert was ``one of the premier political analysts and journalists of his time'' and a beloved colleague.


To read the full article, go to Bloomberg.com .


The American Flag

American Minute from William J. Federer

Thirteen Stars and Thirteen Stripes. It was on JUNE 14, 1777, that the Second Continental Congress selected the Flag of the United States.

In 1916, Woodrow Wilson signed the Proclamation making JUNE 14 "National Flag Day."

On Flag Day, 1942, Franklin D. Roosevelt stated: "The belief in man, created free, in the image of God-is the crucial difference between ourselves and the enemies we face...God of the free...grant us victory over the tyrants who would enslave all free men."

On JUNE 14, 1954, Dwight Eisenhower signed Joint Resolution (Public Law 396) adding the phrase "One Nation Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

Eisenhower stated: "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty. To anyone who truly loves America, nothing could be more inspiring than...this rededication of our youth, on each school morning, to our country's true meaning."

President Eisenhower ended: "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war."

William J. Federer is a nationally recognized author, speaker, and president of Amerisearch, Inc, which is dedicated to researching our American heritage. The American Minute radio feature looks back at events in American history on the dates they occurred, is broadcast daily across the country and read by thousand on the internet.


Sacrifices to the gods of Convenience and Prosperity

Sibby points to an editorial in the Argus Leader today.

The piece has a lot of truth in it, but the last line struck me as exceptionally indicting to our culture:

Today, we sacrifice our children to different gods: convenience and money.

The author, Christopher C. Fisher, hearkened back to the the despicable religious practices of the Canaanites, specifically the worship of Molech.

For those who aren't familiar with this false god, people would sacrifice their children to this god. And they didn't do it in the usual (but still despicable) way of just killing them with a knife. They would heat up the bottom of the statue of this god with fire, then throw their children into the open arms of this "god" to be burned alive.

Why would people do such a thing? Prosperity. They believed sacrificing their children to this god would make their lives better.

Which is why some Canaanite people also entombed one of their children alive inside the walls of a newly built house: it was supposed to bring good luck and prosperity on the household.

Why do we kill (sacrifice?) our unborn children today? I'm firmly convinced that in almost all cases, we believe that our lives will be better without the child. We'll be able to pursue our career goals. We'll have more money for a better house. We'll be able to afford that new car. We'll have the money for that big vacation we've been planning for. We'll be able to do the things WE want to do.

If we'll just sacrifice that unborn child to the god of abortion, our lives will be better.

God judged the people of Canaan harshly for their evil ways. He sent the people of Israel into Canaan with instructions to wipe them out utterly. The Canaanites did a lot of bad things, but child sacrifice was among the very worst.

Today, we sacrifice about a million children a year to the god of convenience and money.

Have we acted any differently than these primitive people in Canaan?

Will we escape the judgment that they did not?


GOP should reflect on Reagan's Berlin Wall speech, 21 years later

BY STAR PARKER
FOUNDER & PRESIDENT
COALITION ON URBAN RENEWAL & EDUCATION

For conservatives and Republicans who are wondering what in the world happened to their party, we should recall June 12, 1987.

That day, exactly 21 years ago, President Ronald Reagan stood before the wall dividing East and West Berlin and directed his famous appeal to the leader of the then Soviet Union, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

The rest, as they say, is history. Two and half years later, the wall was down and a new chapter begun.

It's always worth recalling Reagan's courageous act and words of that time. But we particularly should consider it now in light of today's Republican conundrums.

I turn to the well-known account by then-Reagan speechwriter Peter Robinson about how it all came about.

The story of Reagan's Berlin speech, as recounted by Robinson, is about change and fighting the Washington establishment. Exactly the themes we're hearing almost every day now from our current presidential aspirants.

Robinson wrote the speech for President Reagan, including the famous "tear down this wall" line, and submitted it for review. The opposition to it from the administration's entire foreign policy establishment was uniform and adamant.

The National Security Council and the State Department were opposed, as was our highest-ranking diplomat in Germany. They felt it was too provocative and too unrealistic.

But, the president liked it.

After several drafts, at a meeting to review the speech, Robinson told Reagan that his words would be broadcast on the other side of the wall, in East Berlin. Robinson asked him if he had anything to say to those people.

"Well, there's the passage about tearing down the wall," Reagan said. "That wall has to come down. That's what I'd like to say."

Seven drafts later, the establishment was still trying to purge the speech. Reagan was on Air Force One, en route to Berlin, when there was a last attempt to block it. But the speech was delivered, including the historic line, which stayed in, according to Robinson, "solely because of Ronald Reagan."

Reagan's leadership established the Republican brand in the 1980s, which stayed in ascendancy throughout the 90s, even through Clinton's presidency, when Republicans captured the House.

Bill Clinton himself drew capital off this brand, running as a fiscally conservative "new Democrat." It was Clinton that told us that the "era of big government is over" and signed into law historic welfare reform in 1996, sent to him by the new Republican controlled Congress.

Now we've watched Republicans turn the Congress over to the Democratic Party and it appears likely that they will do the same with the White House.

The "liberal" label is no longer the political death ray it was in the 90s. Sen. Barack Obama's record is as left as you can get, yet it is doubtful that Republicans will defeat him by simply pointing this out.

New Gallup polling on party identification shows Republicans or those leaning Republican at 39 percent. For Democrats, the corresponding figure is 52 percent -- the biggest gap in party identification in years.

How has the Republican Party managed to thoroughly squander the commanding heights achieved under Reagan's leadership?

Unfortunately, courage and leadership are rare. Reagan understood and was committed to what this country is uniquely about -- traditional values and individual freedom.

Most come to Washington for careers, not to serve. With Reagan's departure, the risk-averse, career motivated establishment, which quaked at the idea of the president publicly challenging the Soviet Union, or taking principled stands on anything, began to take over.

Republican politicians have also lost touch with their own base. A Pew Research Center survey shows that Republicans are more religious now than they were 20 years ago. Today's Republican leadership refuses to acknowledge that the social agenda has increased in importance.

My office in Washington is in the Reagan Building, where a piece of the Berlin Wall is on display. It's a reminder of a great leader and how the Republican brand has been tarnished by many less principled and less committed.


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, June 13, 2008

New Homosexual Caucus Formed in Congress

You have to hand it to homosexuals and their apologists: they really know how to mobilize and get things done. They really make a lot of pro-family folks look like a bunch of lazy, timid amateurs.

OneNewsNow reports the homosexual agenda has received even more open and bold support in Congress.

Democrats Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin are the only open homosexuals serving in Congress. They have joined with Republicans Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Christopher Shays of Connecticut, and 50 other Democrats to create the House Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Caucus. Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, says it is a sad day when Congress enshrines official promotion of sexual immorality.

For a constituency who only make up 2.9% of the population, they sure carry a lot of clout. Perhaps unlike Christians, they understand the old adage: the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Given the pathetic congress we have and the poor choice of presidential candidates, people who claim to believe the Bible either don't really believe what they claim to, or they're too scared someone might call them names to speak up like the homosexual lobby does.

The article lists the members of the LGBT Caucus: Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Barney Frank (D-MA), Rob Andrews (D-NJ), Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Lois Capps (D-CA), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Joseph Crowley (D-NY), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Mike Honda (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), James McGovern (D-MA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Linda Sánchez (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Hilda Solis (D-CA), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Henry Waxman (D-CA), Anthony Weiner (D-NY), Peter Welch (D-VT), Howard Berman (D-CA), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Robert Brady (D-PA), Michael Capuano (D-MA), Susan Davis (D-CA), Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Eliot Engel (D-NY), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Phil Hare (D-IL), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Doris Matsui (D-CA), James Moran (D-VA), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-Washington, D.C.), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Steven Rothman (D-NJ), José Serrano (D-NY), Chris Shays (R-CT), Pete Stark (D-CA), Betty Sutton (D-OH), Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), Niki Tsongas (D-MA), Robert Wexler (D-FL), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).


Pro-Family Groups: Judge Should Be Removed From Obscenity Trial



Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post


By Aaron Leichman
Christian Post Reporter
Fri, Jun. 13 2008 02:37 PM ET


In one of the nation’s most high profile cases involving the prosecution of obscenity, pro-family groups and other commentators believed that they had a solid case against a Los Angeles advertizing agency owner who produced and sold thousands of what one attorney described as “the most extreme [pornographic videos] ever been put on trial.”

That is, until the case was temporarily suspended this week after the presiding judge was revealed to have a mountain of obscene pornographic videos on his personal web page.

Although state prosecutors spoke of a significant “conflict of interest” as they requested a 48-hour stay, pro-family groups have called for nothing less than the removal of Ninth Circuit Court Chief Justice Alex Kozinski from the case.

“As of this morning, he [has] yet to recuse himself from the current case involving sexual fetish videos,” the Family Research Council said in a statement.

“[Americans], like FRC, believe that Kozinski is ill-equipped to try an obscenity case when he clearly does not understand the definition of obscene. We call for his recusal in this case and a reexamination of his fitness as chief of one of the most important courts in the entire nation,” the group added.

But perhaps the most incredulous aspect of the recent case, according to pro-family groups, is Kozinki’s apparent indifference to the controversy of having a web page containing obscene pornographic images.

"Is it prurient?" Kozinski asked, according to the Los Angeles Times, which revealed the existence of the images and videos on the judge’s Web site. "I don't know what to tell you... It's part of life. This is a funny joke.”

A joke, however, that few Americans find funny, the FRC said.

The case, which involves Ira Isaacs, who is charged with obscenity for selling movies depicting bestiality and fetishes involving feces and urination, could prove challenging for prosecutors to effectively put on trial.

Kozinski called Thursday for an ethics panel to investigate his own conduct and said he would fully cooperate in any investigation, according to The Associated Press . He has acknowledged the sexual content on his personal Web site and claimed the images were not obscene. The California judge, however, also told the legal Web site abovethelaw.com that he doesn’t remember “putting some of that stuff” there.

"The problem with obscenity is no one really knows what it is. It's relatively simple to paint something as an artistic effort even if it's offensive,” said Jean Rosenbluth, a former federal prosecutor and law professor at University of Southern California, as reported by AP.

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that work cannot be considered obscene if it is deemed to have “literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”

The case will be relegated to a temporary pause until prosecutors decide how to further proceed.

Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Congressional Candidate Chris Lien to Visit ANWR

I've advocated drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for many years. Estimates of the oil below ANWR range from 5 billion barrels to as many as 16 billion barrels, with most estimates coming in at 10 billion. That's enough oil to produce a million barrels a day for about 30 years.

Our nation's demand for oil has been increasing for decades while our oil production has been stalling.

Domestic oil production hasn't been stalled because we can't find any new oil; rather, it's stalled because congress (both Democrats and too many Republicans) panders to environmental extremists.

Environmental extremists would have us believe that if use 2,000 acres out of the 19 million-acre ANWR (0.01% of the area) to drill for oil, we will doom the horde of wildlife in Alaska to extinction and wreck the delicate ecology of the area. That is simply not the case.

First, consider the small area involved; 0.01% of ANWR.

Second, the drilling platforms are raised up off the ground, further reducing their "footprint" on the land.

According to Mark Mosbrucker, a Box Elder man who works the Alaskan oil fields, there isn't a whole lot of wildlife in that area. I interviewed him about three years ago and he said that the area is only green about three months out of the year, and there are very few animals that live there. He said the caribou, which are frequently the object of concern for environmentalists, love the drilling platforms because they provide warmth and shelter from the cold winds. The caribou have thrived since we began drilling in Alaska several decades ago.

In other words, the real picture is not the one painted by environmental extremists and their allies in the "mainstream" media.

Senator John Thune visited ANWR in 2005 and found that out for himself. Now, according to the Rapid City Journal, Republican candidate for the U.S. House Chris Lien of Rapid City will also visit ANWR. Lien is challenging Democrat Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin.

Lien said in a prepared statement issued Thursday afternoon that the trip is in response to concerns about high gas prices that he heard during a tour of all 66 counties in South Dakota. Lien said more can be done to recover available oil reserves in Alaska, as well as parts of Montana, Colorado, North Dakota and northwest South Dakota.

“South Dakotans have told me that enough is enough. They don’t want political leaders who just point at problems,” Lien said. “The people of this state have asked me to find solutions. I plan to visit the region in person to determine the impacts it would have on the region and the energy crisis.”

"In the past 35 days, I have traveled to all 66 counties in South Dakota and the number one concern on everyone's mind is the cost of gas and fuel. Yet, all we see from Congress is more political posturing without any solutions," Lien said in a press release. "I am leading this trip to ANWR to see firsthand the energy solutions that exist here in the United States and I call on Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin to join me in the effort to find solutions today for this crisis situation."

Lien will go with several other congressional candidates on July 14-17. He will likely see what many others have seen: the oil beneath ANWR can greatly help America's energy needs, and can do so without harming the environment.

This trip will provide the firsthand knowledge he will need to push for opening ANWR to drilling when Lien gets to Washington in January 2009.


Jericho Fans Airing Ads to Bring Show Back

The SciFi Channel reports fans of the twice-cancelled CBS show Jerico are purchasing more than 200 local ads in the Los Angeles area in support of bringing the show back.

Jericho was the CBS series about a small Kansas town that struggles to cope with life after a mysterious conspiracy-ridden nuclear strike devastates several major cities across the United States.

But rather than some cheap, B-Grade Mad Max ripoff, the show is at least as much about the three-dimensional characters as it is the overall plot. The plot itself is intriguing and the storyline always leaves you wondering what will happen next, and whether what you think happened really happened the way you think it did. The combination is a fascinating, compelling show.

So why, you might ask, would such a good show bite the dust--twice? Because the idiots at CBS never gave it a fair chance.

When it first premiered, CBS aired several episodes...and then it just went off the air for several months (networks are starting to do crazy things like that more and more these days). By the time they brought it back several months later, many viewers had already gotten involved in other shows. So when ratings were low, they cancelled it.

But outraged fans fought for Jericho's revival, even sending in tons of peanuts to CBS executives (there's an inspirational story behind that).

So the network brought it back...but didn't get started until around February...many months after the regular TV season starts. "Gee, let's kick Jericho in the head again and see how well it does!" Again, by the time they came back with new episodes of Jericho, many viewers were already embroiled in other series. So again this fine show gets the axe.

But fans are busy at work, fighting to get the show revived on another network--hopefully one that will give it a fair chance.

I hope they succeed. Shows of this caliber are rare. It's too bad the morons at CBS didn't realize what they had--and treat it with appropriate respect.


Churches Make a Difference in the Community



Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post


By Jenne Lyle
Christian Today Reporter
Fri, Jun. 13 2008 09:52 AM ET

Christians are making a remarkable contribution to the social welfare and transformation of their local communities, according to a new report launched Thursday.

The report, two years in the making, is the joint project of the Churches Regional Commission in Yorkshire and the Humber and Faithworks and confronts the widely-asked question of “If your church disappeared tomorrow would anyone notice the difference?”

The charities looked at 19 innovative “presences,” or expressions of Christian work, from across the Yorkshire and Humber region in the United Kingdom to find out what makes or breaks an effective Christian presence in the local community. They discovered that churches are making a substantial financial contribution to their communities.

The report, funded by governmental agency Yorkshire Forward, also identified seven key components of an effective Christian presence. These included partnership or collaborative working between organizations, team work and simply “keeping the fire alive.”

It added that volunteers were “crucial” to effective community engagement, but added that “churches need to [get] better at managing them.”

Liz Carnelley, chief executive of the Churches Regional Commission for Yorkshire and the Humber, said the report’s findings were of national significance when it came to promoting the effectiveness of Christian engagement in local communities.

Carnelley was at the launch of the report along with Malcolm Duncan, leader of the Faithworks movement, and Fran Beckett, head of Church Urban Fund.

“We can learn from what has made these presences effective, and there are real lessons here that churches need to hear,” she said. “Lives are being changed and communities transformed by what Christians are doing across the region.”

Duncan, meanwhile, paid tribute to the work of the projects featured in the research, which included church-run Fairtrade cafes, conference and drop-in centers, after school clubs, and alcohol and drug abuse recovery programs.

“In these 19 presences we see true examples of Christian-motivated community work that are demonstrably making a tangible difference to the lives of all kinds of people,” he said.

“Through this report we hope to highlight these projects, as well as [draw] attention to the thousands more who are putting their faith into practical action for the benefit of their communities.”


Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


de Lafayette and Washington

American Minute from William J. Federer

19-year-old Marquis de Lafayette purchased a ship and sailed to America, arriving JUNE 13, 1777.

Trained in the French Military, he was appointed a major general. Lafayette endured the freezing winter at Valley Forge, and fought at Brandywine, Barren Hill and Monmouth. Lafayette led troops against the traitor Benedict Arnold and commanded at Yorktown, pressuring Cornwallis to surrender.

On May 10, 1786, George Washington wrote from Mount Vernon to Marquis de Lafayette: "Your late purchase of an estate in the colony of Cayenne, with a view of emancipating the slaves on it, is a generous and noble proof of your humanity. Would to God a like spirit would diffuse itself generally into the minds of the people of this country."

On August 15, 1787, in a letter from Philadelphia to the Marquis de Lafayette, George Washington wrote: "I am not less ardent in my wish that you may succeed in your plan of toleration in religious matters. Being no bigot myself to any mode of worship, I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church with that road to Heaven which to them shall seem the most direct, plainest and easiest, and the least liable to exception."

William J. Federer is a nationally recognized author, speaker, and president of Amerisearch, Inc, which is dedicated to researching our American heritage. The American Minute radio feature looks back at events in American history on the dates they occurred, is broadcast daily across the country and read by thousand on the internet.


Religious Discrimination Suit Brought Against Ohio Library



Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post


By Alexander J. Sheffrin
Christian Post Reporter
Thu, Jun. 12 2008 05:44 PM ET


A Christian legal group is suing in federal court an Ohio public library over what the group argues is a case of anti-Christian religious discrimination.

In its lawsuit filed last week, the Alliance Defense Fund said the Clermont County Public Library denied a Christian couple access to their public meeting rooms because of their intention to hold a seminar that would make use of Scripture-based financial related materials through Crown Financial Ministries.

Although the library’s public policy states that “meeting rooms are available to all community groups and non-profit organizations,” the biblically-based financial group was denied access to a meeting room because of what the library said was a policy against “quoting Bible verses.”

According to the library's policy, meeting rooms are prohibited for use for political, religious or social events.

In a statement, ADF Legal Counsel Tim Chandler said that the lawsuit would seek damages against the library because of what he described as their “blatant viewpoint discrimination” against Christians.

“Refusing to grant this group permission to hold a seminar at a meeting room in a public library because they planned to quote the Bible is about as blatantly un-American and unconstitutional as you can get,” he said.

“What’s next? Will the library board attempt to keep patrons from checking out Bibles and reading them on government property?” he asked.

In his summary of the case, ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot said that the library was clearly in the wrong and had done much harm to Christians everywhere.

“The denial sends the message to Christians that they are not deemed a valuable part of the community,” he said. “This is a financial planning seminar, and the library has previously allowed meetings that discuss financial planning. The fact that they may quote Bible verses during the meeting does not legally matter.”

The suit asks that the library's rule against the use of meeting rooms for religious events be overturned, and that compensatory damages be awarded to the couple and the organization.

“The Vandergriffs and the institute believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and as such is the source of all wisdom and knowledge, including all wisdom and knowledge concerning financial matters,” the suit states.

Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


98.9 Percent of Abortions in New Zealand Due to Mental Health Reasons

Have you ever wondered while those mean ole pro-lifers oppose an abortion exception which allows a woman to abort her unborn child for mental health reasons?

It isn't because they're insensitive to the pressures faced by the pregnant woman. Rather, they know that such an exception would by nature be so subjective as to allow any abortion.

LifeSiteNews reports that in New Zealand Justice Forrest Miller found that the vast majority of abortions in that country are being performed under false pretenses using the "mental health" exception.

Approximately 18,000 abortions are performed every year in New Zealand, 98.9% of which are carried out on the grounds of mental health concerns.

Yes, that figure said practically 99% of the abortions in New Zealand are being done on the "mental health" exception.

In South Dakota in 2006, 2.1% of abortions in the state were performed for reasons of emotional health, which is essentially the same thing.

Since 84.6% were done in South Dakota for no other reason than "The mother did not desire to have the child," do you think we'd see the percentage done for "mental/emotional health" reasons drastically increase if that was one of the few or only exceptions remaining? Undoubtedly.

Mental and emotional health justifications are simply too subjective to be enforced. Any sort of mental distress, anxiety or discomfort could be used to justify an abortion.

The exceptions for rape, incest, the life and physical health of the mother allowed in South Dakota's Initiated Measure 11 are, while inconsistent with a true pro-life position, the most reasonable compromise that could possibly be made.

Based on polls taken in 2006 which found that over 70% of South Dakotans would support a pro-life bill like Initiated Measure 11, it should pass this November.

HT to the VoteYesForLife.com blog.


Norway the Sixth Country to Recognize Homosexual 'Marriage'

Norway has become the latest country to recognize homosexual "marriage," according to LifeSiteNews.

The article says Norway is the sixth country to do so, and the new law includes the explicit right for homosexuals to adopt children and lesbians to be artificially inseminated.

Norway began allowing same-sex civil unions in the 1990s and since then its heterosexual-marriage rates have plummeted and its out-of-wedlock birthrate skyrocketed to 80 percent for firstborn children; but the provision allowing homosexuals to adopt children is of gravest concern.
Homosexual "marriages" are a minefield of problems, for the couple and for any children who may be involved:
O'Leary explained that "a same-sex couple has, by definition, two persons at high risk for psychological disorders. The studies published in the Archives of General Psychiatry found that persons self-identified as homosexual in comparison to the general public had almost double the rate of suicidal ideation or attempts, substance abuse problems and psychological disorders. One of the studies found that 78.6% of the gay, lesbian or bisexual group suffered from multiple disorders."

"And there are other problems: Domestic violence is more common among same-sex couples. Men with same-sex attractions are more likely to become infected with a STD, including HIV, hepatitis or HPV, which can lead to cancer. Thus, several studies suggest that 50% of men who have sex with men will become HIV positive before age 50."

Only the insane would allow a child to enter such a high-risk environment when it could be prevented.

But then, it seems the whole world has gone mad.


Study: Cohabitation Becoming Mainstream

USA Today says cohabitation in the U.S. and in 13 other countries around the world has become accepted as commonplace.

The article does point out some significant differences between the U.S. and other countries.

The National Marriage Project study of a sampling of Western European and Scandinavian nations, Australia, Canada and New Zealand found that cohabitation elsewhere is far more common and indeed viewed as an option to matrimony. The study found that anywhere from 15% to 30% of all couples identified themselves as living together, compared with about 10% right now in the USA.

In America it's gone from about 500,000 cohabitating couples in 1970 to about 5 million now.

In a culture where families and children are already struggling with academic achievement, drug abuse and crime, this is not good news.

Focus on the Family's CitizenLink data shows what many other studies have shown: cohabitation leads to instability in the home, which leads to a host of other problems:

- After five to seven years, 39% of all cohabiting couples have broken up

- Cohabitating couples are three times as likely to experience depression

- Women in cohabitative relationships are two to five times more likely to experience domestic violence

- Children are at greater risk of physical and sexual abuse.

Isn't it important for us not to undermine marriage with politically correct social experiments, TV shows that mock marriage, and a cavalier attitude about sex?

Do we want healthy families and a healthy society? Or would we rather have more hurting families, more hurting children, more crime and more chaos?

HT to CitizenLink.


'Persons' Can Overturn Roe v Wade

OneNewsNow says bills defining unborn human beings as "persons" have been introduced in both the U.S. House and Senate.

The "Life at Conception Act" declares the unborn to be persons under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, addressing the question that Senator Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) says the Supreme Court left unresolved in 1973 -- and that only Congress can use to meet the conditions under which the high court said its conclusions supporting legal abortion can be reversed.

"Roe versus Wade itself said that if personhood is established, then Ms. Roe's position collapsed," Wicker points out. "In other words, if the fetus is a human life, then that is guaranteed specifically by the 14th Amendment."

Ms. Roe her self (Norma McCorvey) actually collapsed her own position...yet abortion remains the law of the land by judicial fiat.

McCorvey, who has become a Christian since the 1973 decision, has admitted she lied about being raped, and never even had the abortion that Roe v. Wade petitioned for; she gave her daughter up for adoption.

She has also since petitioned to have the Roe v. Wade decision overturned, but was denied.

The new bills have been cosponsored by such notable figures as Rep. Duncan "Should Have Been the GOP Presidential Nominee" Hunter and Senator Sam "Wouldn't Have Been a Bad Choice Either" Brownback.

Since the unborn child has from conception DNA unique from the mother's (meaning the child is not a part of the mother, but is a separate, distinct person) and already has a beating heart by the time many women know they're pregnant, it's no leap to conclude that the unborn child is indeed a person--entitled to the most basic of all rights: the right to life.


Thursday, June 12, 2008

A New Stealth Fairness Doctrine

Since Democrats regained control of Congress in 2006, they've been hot to muzzle talk radio (they know Rush Limbaugh was largely responsible for the 1994 Republican Revolution) by reimplementing the Fairness Doctrine that Ronald Reagan did away with.

That effort was successfully blocked last year, but we we knew they'd be back.

National Review says the Left is still working on the Fairness Doctrine, only repackaged under a new name: localism.

In 2007, the Center for American Progress issued a report, “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio,” that cleverly recasts the Fairness Doctrine as “localism” by stating that “any effort to encourage more responsive and balanced radio programming will first require steps to increase localism.”

The center’s report also urged quotas by race and sex for radio-station ownership, because a survey of all “10,506 licensed commercial radio stations reveals that stations owned by women, minorities, or local owners are statistically less likely to air conservative hosts or shows.”

So what would that look like and how would it work?
What does “cultural diversity” mean in practice? One witness at an FCC localism hearing actually complained that a “population of 60,000 Somali Americans” in Minneapolis-St. Paul were forced to get by with a mere “10 regularly-produced TV series on vocational training, acculturation, health education and other topics of vital importance” accounting for “approximately 20 hours of programming a week . . . because the community is not deemed to be a viable market.”

This cultural diversity is to be enforced by professional ethnic activists and other perpetual malcontents: All “licensees should convene and consult with permanent advisory boards.” These advisory boards “should include representatives of all segments of the community.”

Basically, a vocal group of a particular ideological bent or "identity group" could dictate programming on local radio stations--regardless of whether such programming is marketable. In other words, while people can now "vote" for or against programming with their purchasing dollars in conjunction with advertising dollars, the listening public will now have programming forced on them whether it's financially viable or not, whether they want to hear it or not. The diversity mandate will require the broadcast of material whether anyone outside a small but vocal constituency wants to hear it or not.

Since there are only so many hours in a day, forcing new programming onto the air waves will force other programming off, to make room. What will go? Perhaps the point-of-view programming that offends these vocal groups?

Rather than start their own radio station and develop the marketability of their own programming, liberals are forcing radio stations to offer their drivel whether anyone wants to hear it or not.

Actually, they tried going the "free market" route with Air America, which was a colossal flop. So now they want to use the power of government to regulate free speech.

The last time I checked, that was prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. But then, what does that matter anymore?


GM Closing Plants, Workers Celebrate

The Peoples’ Cube is a site I visit often for a few laughs at the expense of liberal/socialist die-hards, i.e., the Democrat Party, the owners and staff at Google, the State Department and the entire MSM.

Red Square” is an author and moderator and has a delightfully Bolshevist way of mocking the old Soviet Empire and offending most leftists who still believe that Marxism has yet to be tried by the right people and when it is finally done (by them) the Glorious Revolution of the Proletariat will usher in a workers’ paradise.

In a post this week “Red Square” takes a satirical shot at General Motors and their announcement that they will close assembly lines of some gas-guzzling vehicles for the sake of the environment and Al Gore while eliminating thousands of jobs.


American automakers responded with great enthusiasm to yesterday's decision by General Motors to compost its gas-guzzling business model and close four pickup truck and SUV plants - a unilateral gesture of good will towards the environment that will result in 10,000 lost jobs.
The automaker communities are widely celebrating the event with eco-friendly block parties, Earth fairs, outdoor concerts of New Age music, drum circles in the wilderness, meditations, body painting, and unrhymed poetry readings that venerate the earth as a living, spiritual being that feels pain when it is bring drilled for oil.
~
GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner said before the automakers' annual meeting in Delaware that his conscience is finally clear of concerns about Global Warming and saving the polar bears. "Jobs should no longer be viewed as the source of income, economic stability, and overall satisfaction, because the government is supposed to take care of all that," he said. "Do we dream of bringing back industry? Or do we recognize that technology is an abomination against nature; that free enterprise is exploitation; that private property ownership is impossible; and Western Culture is the root of all evil?"

A former GM mechanic and now unemployed Matt Novak, 45, said he was thankful that saving the earth from oil extraction has finally outranked concerns about jobs and economy. "I may have no paycheck but I'm really excited that the caribou herds in ANWR are going to be safe and Big Oil executives are going to eat s***," he wrote in a touching poem dedicated to his wife and six children, that won a prestigious Earth Poet award at a storytelling festival in Ohio yesterday.


More...


Louisiana House Overwhelmingly Passes Academic Freedom Bill



Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post


By Alexander J. Sheffrin
Christian Post Reporter
Thu, Jun. 12 2008 03:16 PM ET


The Louisiana House of Representatives voted 94-3 Wednesday to pass a bill that would grant teachers and students the freedom to challenge and examine critically the tenets of Darwinism in the classroom.

The measure, which is expected to cruise easily through the upper house, is the latest measure in a series of “Academic Freedom” bills that have swept across several states, including Missouri, Alabama, and Michigan. A similar measure was also under review in Florida earlier this year before stalling in the state’s legislature.

Lawmakers say that the efforts to pass the bills are a response to allegations that teachers and students who share views contradicting or challenging the tenets of Darwinism in the classroom are marginalized, discriminated, or ostracized.

Louisiana’s version of the bill, the “Science Education Act,” will help to supply teachers with supplementary textbooks that will give greater freedom in the classroom to analyze and critique existing scientific theories concerning evolution.

Supporters of the bill said that the measure would be an important step in securing safe academic environments where “critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories” would be welcome.

“This bill promotes good science education by protecting the academic freedom of science teachers,” said Dr. John West, Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute, in a statement.

Detractors of the bill, however, claim that the recent measure is nothing more than a masked agenda to install religion in schools.

In a statement, Americans United said that it would not rule out legal action against the bill on the grounds of violating the separation of church and state.

“Americans United and other groups contend that [the] ‘supplemental materials’ (textbooks) are likely to be anti-evolution books, DVDs and other items produced by fundamentalist Christian ministries,” the group said.

“The measure is being pushed by the Louisiana Family Forum, the Discovery Institute and other Religious Right forces,” the group added.

West, however, denies this assertion, noting that the language of the bill is clear, objective, and fair.

“Critics who claim the bill promotes religion instead of science either haven’t read the bill or are putting up a smokescreen to divert attention from the censorship that has been going on,” he said.

“The proposed Louisiana law expressly states in Section 1C that it ‘shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion,’” he continued.

“Americans United conveniently neglects to mention that section of the bill,” he said.

In total, at least six states have considered passing "Academic Freedom" legislation this year, according to the Discovery Institute.

Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Ron Paul Truly Hanging Up His Spurs This Time

I guess Ron Paul is really, really done this time.

ABC News says Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is for sure, definitely, no-doubt-about-it ending his campaign this time.

Paul's continuing candidacy has largely been a non-issue since John McCain was unofficially coronated for the Republican Party a few months ago.

It's too bad Ron Paul sounded like a MoveOn.org ad on the Iraq War, with his talk of "blood for oil" and such. If he'd been right on that issue, I might just have supported him. His respect for the U.S. Constitution is commendable, though he's more Libertarian that Republican.


New Southern Baptist President Comes from Church with Ministry to Homosexuals

Focus on the Family's CitizenLink reports the Southern Baptists have elected a new president, Rev. Johnny Hunt of First Baptist Church of Woodstock, Georgia.

He is said to be a conservative, and Southern Baptists have been in a tug-of-war (as have many Protestant denominations) for decades between liberal and conservative elements.

The article also mentions that Pastor Hunt's church is part of the Exodus Church Network, which is an interdenominational network of churches which minister to homosexuals while holding to Biblical sexual standards.

This is an area where more churches need to be active. Like any addictive sin, homosexuality can be difficult to achieve victory over, and people who want to be free of bondage to homosexuality are much more likely to succeed if they have the support of a good Bible-believing church. Some churches have ministries to alcoholics and drug addicts, but more are needed for all these trouble areas.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 says the church at Corinth was made up for former drunks, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals and swindlers; Paul said that is what some of them were. Today's Church is no different (I'm a former drunk).

Hopefully Pastor Hunt's commitment to ministry to homosexuals will take even greater hold all across the Southern Baptist denomination (and other denominations). Jesus came to set the captives free, so that is also a part of the mission of His Church.


Freedom of Speech, Religion Ushered Out in Colorado

You might have heard about the Colorado "Restroom Chaos" law signed by Governor Bill Ritter a couple of weeks ago. It allows men who "think" they're women or "feel" like women to use the ladies restrooms and locker rooms.

But apparently the law had some more bad stuff in the fine print: politically incorrect Biblical truth has been outlawed in Colorado outside the walls of the church.

From WorldNetDaily:

The law provides an exemption allowing religious groups to continue teaching, inside their doors, the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality. But the exemption itself is ultimately harmful to the church, Hausknecht contends.

"It tends to marginalize the church," he said. "They'll say, 'It's just a church.' It will allow gay activists to continue to marginalize Christians. They'll say, 'Keep it within your four walls. That's all.'"

If you're a publisher of religious materials that contain a message verboten by the politically correct definition of Colorado, you're toast. If you want to give a friend a tract or book explaining God's position on homosexuality, you're toast.

The article also raises fears that the state may be able to quash the freedom to teach the Bible message even inside the doors of the church if that church has a school or community outreach programs.

Part of the law cited:
Section 8. 24-34-701. Publishing of discriminative matter forbidden. No person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent, or employee of any place of public accommodation... shall publish, issue, circulate, send, distribute, give away, or display in any way, manner, or shape or by any means or method, except as provided in this section, any communication, paper, poster, folder, manuscript, book, pamphlet, writing, print, letter, notice, or advertisement of any kind, nature, or description THAT is intended or calculated to discriminate or actually discriminates against... SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status... in the matter of furnishing or neglecting or refusing to furnish to them or any one of them any lodging, housing, schooling, or tuition or any accommodation, right [marriage], privilege [adoption], advantage, or convenience... on account of... SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status... [which] is unwelcome or objectionable or not acceptable, desired, or solicited."

Who would have thought 50 years ago that freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression in America would be on their way out the door at the beginning of the 21st Century? And who would have thought those freedoms would be murdered to advance the legitimization of a sexual practice with no practical biological function which is condemned by the teachings of every major religion?

I seem to remember something in the U.S. Constitution about freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. I suppose that silly stuff is obsolete in Colorado now. After all, why should we allow a silly thing like the U.S. Constitution, the highest law of our country, to get in the way of advancing the legitimization of homosexuality.


Homosexuals Unfettered by Law

Apparently the trend of not allowing silly things like law and Constitution to stop liberal agendas is growing.

From WorldNetDaily, not only did the mayor of Seattle (ostensibly sworn to uphold the law) break the law in granting benefits to homosexual couples, the Washington Supreme Court is apparently okay with that since they declined to review a lower court's decision allowing the mayor to break the law.

The state's Defense of Marriage Act, which was upheld by the Washington Supreme Court, requires that the state not recognize same-sex marriages from outside the state.

However, the mayor of Seattle issued an executive order in direct contradiction of the state law, instructing all city departments to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions now, including California, for the purposes of employee benefits.

WorldNetDaily also reports that Massachusetts Governor Duval Patrick has appointed a lesbian activist as associate justice of the Middlesex Probate and Family Court--without legal authority to do so. In addition to bad judgment (as a lesbian, Maureen Monks has turned her back on the creation and maintenance of the family as nature and nature's God intended--and she will now have authority over family court?), Governor Patrick has broken the law.

As the WND article points out, the law requires that judicial nominees receive 5 votes from the Massachusetts Governor's Council. Monks only received four--and it's not even clear whether those four are legal, since the law does not indicate that verbal votes may be counted.

The California Supreme Court recently decided to ignore the DOMA law of that state and create a "right" for homosexuals to get "married."

We were once a nation of laws. In a nation of laws, you know where you stand. In a nation where laws are not only disregarded by the common people but by those in charge of UPHOLDING the law, there is really no way to tell from day to day whether you will retain your freedoms.

In this particular case, the disregard for the law is recognizing something as legitimate which will never truly be legitimate. However, the same disregard for law may result in serious damage to our freedoms and even the security of our persons and property.

Today you may be fine, tomorrow you're a criminal for doing the same thing. Today you were protected from mistreatment by another person, tomorrow they can harm you with impunity.


Develop Oil Reserves Now

On Dakota Voice and other blogs and news sites, on Fox News and MSNBC I have noticed that when the subject of drilling for American oil comes up the Leftist spokesmen respond that the benefits of drilling at home will be too little too late.

As a recent example, Bill Dennison, responded to a Dakota Voice post “Half of US Oil is Off Limits to Drilling” by claiming the US oil reserves are not enough to make any difference.

"If U.S. oil reserves (Alaska, Bakken, offshore and everywhere on U.S. territory) total an optimistic 150 Billion recoverable barrels that would replace our imports -- only our IMPORTS -- for approximately thirty five years. Then what?"

Thirty-five years!? Only IMPORTS? That, Bill, is exactly what we want to replace. Besides,I don’t believe that is all the oil there is, but if so, I’ll take it! That would give America the time to defeat terrorism, develop yet additional petroleum reserves, build nuclear power plants and advance alternative technologies. If not greater energy independence what is our alternative? Continue to pay the price demanded by our enemies in the Middle East so that they will have the wealth to continue to wage Jihad against the West?

Notice that the Democrats and Leftists do not bring up environmental concerns in their arguments against developing known oil reserves. They know that Americans dealing with 4 and 5 dollar per gallon gasoline and rising prices on groceries and most everything else are a little inpatient with enviro-whackos constantly whining and getting in the way of needed energy and development policies. Americans of all political persuasions are realizing that we cannot be held hostage to unfriendly countries, paying whatever they demand, and maintain our sovereignty and way of life. That is why it is so important for Republicans to seize this issue now and become the party of American strength and independence. (Unfortunately, John McCain is not the man to lead such a movement.)

But we can readily see which party in Congress is on the right side of the issue. Congressman Roy Blunt put together these data to highlight the differences between House Republicans and House Democrats on energy policy:

BY THE ISSUE

ANWR Exploration
House Republicans: 91% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Coal-to-Liquid
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed

SUMMARY

91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas

86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas


Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.

CORRECTION: This post has been edited to remove a reference to another website that was erroneously mentioned and had nothing to do with persons named in this piece. My apologies to all, especially to loyal readers of Dakota Voice.


Identity Politics

How the Democrats play "identity politics" (pandering to groups) rather than seeing Americans as being all on the same team.


China Drills, Brazil Drills, US Doesn't Drill

What country is serious about getting the oil we need? It isn't the United States...and what kind of message does that send to the world about us?


Obama: The Abortion President

Barack Obama makes it clear that his first priority upon becoming president would be to open the floodgates (or should I say "bloodgates"?) of abortion on demand.

Consider this from LifeSiteNews:

"The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," Obama said in his July speech to abortion advocates worried about the increase of pro-life legislation at the state level.

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is legislation Obama has co-sponsored along with 18 other senators that would annihilate every single state law limiting or regulating abortion, including the federal ban on partial birth abortion.

The 2007 version of FOCA proposed: "It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman."

What does "health" mean? When it isn't clearly and properly defined to indicate serious bodily function as it is in South Dakota's Initiated Measure 11, it can mean anything we want it to mean. Which ultimately means an open door to abortion for any reason.

Choice begins when a woman has sex. The natural function and result of sex is reproduction. Even the oral contraceptive can fail--and sometimes does. When you have sex there is an implied (dare I say "accepted") risk that pregnancy may result.

Once human life has been created in the womb, the primary focus of choice moves from the woman to the new life created in her womb. From conception the child has it's own separate DNA, unique from the mother's DNA, making the child not a part of her body over which she exercises choice, but a separate, unique human being.

That child has the first and foremost right and choice among all rights and choices: to live.


Study: One in Four NYC Residents Has Herpes



Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post


By Joshua Goldberg
Christian Post Reporter
Wed, Jun. 11 2008 06:28 PM ET

Over a fourth of all New Yorkers have genital herpes, according to a new study released Monday by the New York City Health Department.

The herpes virus, which affects about 19 percent of all adults nationally, has no cure and can make one up to three times more likely to contract HIV.

Pro-family groups reacted to the news with horror and dismay as they strengthened their case for the need for abstinence-based education programs in place of what they said were failed “comprehensive” sex-education policies.

“The same city that introduced a ‘get some’ condom campaign has gotten some, alright,” the Family Research Council (FRC) expressed in a statement.

“For years, NYC has been the grand central station of promiscuity. Now it's painfully obvious the city's solution of tossing out 36 million trendy condoms a year is only exacerbating the problem,” the group added.

Particularly troubling, according to the FRC, was the high proportion of infection among African-American and Hispanic city residents. Nearly half of all African-Americans and over a third of Hispanics had genital herpes, according to the study.

The FRC said that they hoped the new study would bring up a new awareness of the importance for citizens to mobilize and act against existing sex-education programs that encourage promiscuous behavior.

“Taxpayers should be outraged that their city is spending over a million dollars a year in a failed public health policy that does not protect against disease but foolishly encourages the behavior that leads to the spread of it,” the group explained.

Recently, the National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) launched its “Parents for Truth” campaign, through which it hopes to recruit one million parents over the next three years in a prolonged battle against comprehensive sex education programs.

According to a study by The Heritage Foundation, research overwhelmingly supports the case for abstinence-based education in place of “comprehensive” sex education in schools.

In the study, 15 out of 21 abstinence-education programs “showed positive behavioral results in the students, including the delay or reduction of sexual activity.”

Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Chinese Drilling Off the Coast of United States

CNS News says the communist Chinese are doing what we aren't smart enough to do here in America: drill for oil off the coast of the United States.

The country which is ideologically and economically opposed to the United States; that captured one of our military planes a few years ago, held our troops, then eventually sent them home along with the plane sawed up into parts; this country which is building it's military with American dollars is drilling for oil (which will undoubtedly support it's military) off the coast of the United States, while Americans pay unprecedented gas prices and are too timid to drill off the coast or anywhere else on our own land!

"Do congressional Democrats actually believe China has more ingenuity and more concern for the environment than the United States?" Republicans asked.

If anyone does, I have some ocean-front property in Arizona I'd like to sell them. From my front porch I can see the sea!

It's time to relegate environmental extremists to the far-out-in-Left-field place they came from and get serious about energy policy.

It's time to Drill Here, Drill Now!


Immorality is on the Offensive

Judge Roy Moore's column at WorldNetDaily today catalogs a list of recent encroachments of immorality which support the title of his piece: "Immorality on the offense." Indeed it is.

He cites:

- the California Supreme Court decision finding a "right" for homosexuals to call their unions "marriage"

- a lesbian couple suing two Christian doctors for refusing to artificially inseminate one of the women

- the outrage of homosexuals and their apologists when Clerk Greg Smith of the San Diego County Assessor and Recorder's Office publicly stated that he would not force his employees to perform homosexual "marriages" if the employees have serious moral or religious objections

- Illinois and Washington states have quashed the right of conscience of pharmacists in those states not to dispense contraceptives and abortifacients that violate their religious beliefs

- photographer Elaine Huguenin was fined for refusing to photograph a lesbian "commitment ceremony"

Judge Moore calls this what it is:

For those who love immorality, it has never been about "freedom of choice" or equal treatment; they want to force others to give up their religious convictions upon demand, and they are quick to employ the heavy hand of government to get their way. Unless such tyranny is stopped in its tracks, your beliefs and your job could be next.

They tried the same thing with pharmacists here in South Dakota during the legislative session a few months ago.

I argued exhaustively with feminists, at Dakota Voice and other blogs, who supported the elimination of conscience for pharmacists that women can still obtain these contraceptives and abortifacients at other pharmacies or through mail order.

No, that was NEVER acceptable. They insisted the pharmacist MUST be forced to dispense the material on demand, regardless of his moral reservations. Essentially they wanted a Pepsi machine that would dispense product without any sort of judgment.

And if the pharmacists will not reduce him/herself to a dispensing machine, these feminists and their apologists insist the pharmacist be punished.

One person who a letter to the editor of the Rapid City Journal insisted the exercise of conscience by pharmacists was "dishonorable, unconscionable and in the end, unfaithful." So we have reached the (low) point in our culture where the exercise of conscience is called "dishonorable."

Fortunately, this badly flawed bill (both in language and in intent) was killed.

But as Judge Moore said, the forces of immorality are on the offensive. They will be back.

The question I have is: why are the forces of morality on the defensive...or dare I say, why are the forces of morality in full retreat?


Evangelical Leader Names Four Greatest Threats to Society



Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post


By Lillian Kwon
Christian Post Reporter
Wed, Jun. 11 2008 08:44 AM ET


INDIANAPOLIS – Many people say evangelicals are stuck on one issue – whether it’s abortion or same-sex “marriage” – when speaking out to defend moral values. But to those defending, it’s not just a single issue.

“Marriage is a single issue?” Dr. Richard Land, president of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, posed to thousands of Southern Baptists Tuesday. “It’s the building block of society.”

Land believes there are four “modern horsemen of the apocalypse” that are “riding forth to wreak havoc and destruction in our society” – the denial of the sanctity of human life, the rise of hardcore Internet pornography, the radical homosexual agenda and its attempt to undermine marriage and radical Islamic jihadism.

“Make no mistake about it. Radical Islamic jihadism has declared war on America and American civilization and Christianity,” Land emphatically said.

When former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft approached Land and two other prominent evangelical leaders about six years ago, asking what they believe is the most crucial issue facing Americans at the time, Land said Internet pornography has begun to destroy the lives of more men and women than abortion. While abortion would have been his answer if he was asked even a few years earlier, the growth of what he has labeled “the most grotesque perversions of human sexuality” on the Internet has overtaken that issue, he said.

With pornography readily available on the Internet and on wireless devices, Americans including many in the church have fallen victim to the activity. Many Christian groups call it a moral crisis, and reports indicate that as much as 50 percent of men in the pews and the pulpit view pornography, some of whom are addicted.

Still, Land believes abortion and the radical homosexual agenda – both of which evangelicals are widely known to oppose – are greatly devastating society.

“We’re not going to exchange the [abortion] agenda,” Land said Tuesday at the Southern Baptist Convention’s annual meeting while affirming that they will continue to be concerned about the sanctity of life.

What is a person is not just a single issue, Land stressed. “Every human being deserves protection from conception.”

And what is a male and female is not a single issue, he added. Quoting Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, Land said, “If the family goes, everything goes,” as he referred to the radical homosexual agenda.

While evangelicals face four major battles, Land called the Southern Baptists to first take a look at themselves. The rise of the born-again and evangelical Christian population has been staggering over the past few decades, Land pointed out. Yet the impact that evangelicals have had on society has been very little.

“We experienced growth of evangelicalism and yet our culture is worse off in almost every way except race and sexual discrimination,” he said. Rather than being the salt and the light for the world, he said they have been “salted and lit” by the culture.

Calling evangelicals to fall on their knees in repentance, Land said the only answer to these problems is a revival – a revival that begins with them.


Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Doing Your Part

American Minute from William J. Federer

He sent Paul Revere on his midnight ride to warn Lexington the British were coming. A Harvard graduate, he was a successful doctor in Boston, but left his career when the British passed the hated Stamp Act. With Samuel Adams, he organized the Provincial Congress to protest. His name was Dr. Joseph Warren, born JUNE 11, 1741.

Following the Boston Tea Party, King George III enacted the Intolerable Acts of 1774: blocking Boston harbor until citizens reimbursed the East India Tea Company; quartering British soldiers in private homes; allowing British officials to be unaccountable for their crimes; and replacing Massachusetts' elected officials with royal appointees.

In response, Dr. Joseph Warren wrote the Suffolk Resolves, urging Massachusetts to establish a free state, boycott British goods, form militias and no longer be loyal to a king who violates their rights.

Fighting in the Battle of Bunker Hill, a monument marks where Warren died.

Three years earlier Dr. Joseph Warren stated on the anniversary of the Boston Massacre: "If you perform your part, you must have the strongest confidence that the same Almighty Being who protected your pious and venerable forefathers...will still be mindful of you."

William J. Federer is a nationally recognized author, speaker, and president of Amerisearch, Inc, which is dedicated to researching our American heritage. The American Minute radio feature looks back at events in American history on the dates they occurred, is broadcast daily across the country and read by thousand on the internet.


No Child Left Undrugged

By John W. Whitehead

According to autopsy reports, 4-year-old Rebecca Riley died from an overdose of psychiatric drugs. At age 2, Rebecca was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). At 3, she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, also known as manic depression. By the time she died on Dec. 13, 2006, little Rebecca was taking Clonidine, as well as the anti-convulsant Depakote and the anti-psychotic Seroquel.

What were some of the symptoms that prompted such treatment plans? As her mother described it, Rebecca was “constantly getting into things, running around, not being able to settle down.”

Rebecca’s diagnosis was not a medical aberration. Her 10-year-old brother and 4-year-old sister were already being treated for manic depression. Indeed, nearly one million children are reportedly diagnosed as bipolar, making it more common than autism and diabetes combined. From 1994 to 2003, the number of children treated for bipolar disorder increased 40 percent, a jump that many experts attribute to more doctors aggressively applying the diagnosis.

An increasing number of medical officials are voicing the concern that children are being misdiagnosed. Dr. John McClellan, who runs a children’s psychiatric hospital in the state of Washington, suggested that the bipolar diagnosis has become a catch-all for aggressive and troubled children.

Likewise, child psychiatrist John Holttum believes that the definition of bipolar disorder is expanding. Whereas children who were seen as troubled or irritable 10 or 15 years ago might have been treated with counseling, parental training for their caregivers or other social interventions, children with similar symptoms today are being diagnosed as bipolar and treated with medication. Unfortunately, for many families, therapy is not even an option. According to Dr. Michael Brody, a child psychiatrist at the University of Maryland, since insurance companies often do not support therapy, most parents opt for medication.

Not surprisingly, the pharmaceutical companies are reaping the rewards, aided by the medical community and the media. Bipolar disorder medication is typically three to five times more expensive than medications prescribed for other disorders, such as depression or anxiety. As the News Tribune of Tacoma, Wash., points out, “Furthering the trend is extensive marketing of atypical anti-psychotics by the companies that make them, and media coverage of bipolar disorder as a childhood disease.”

Yet many of the anti-psychotic drugs being prescribed for children have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use on them. Of the two that have been approved for children, Risperdahl and Abilify, they’ve only been approved for short-term use. Nevertheless, as the News Tribune points out, because these drugs have been approved for adults, “doctors are free to prescribe drugs to anyone and in any way they see fit once they have been approved for some purpose.”

What this means is that in addition to being misdiagnosed, there is an increased likelihood that children are also being overdrugged. Concern about this scenario has prompted Dr. Jeffrey Thompson, chief medical officer for the Washington state Medicaid program, to provide more stringent guidelines to ensure that anti-psychotic drugs are prescribed to Medicaid children only when truly needed and at proper dosages.

While Thompson’s actions signal a move in the right direction, at least for minor-aged Medicaid recipients in his state, it will do little to help children in private care and in other states.

When confronted with the numbers of children being diagnosed with bipolar disorder—about 800,000 in 2003, and likely much higher now—it is hard to know how to respond. Could that many young people truly be suffering from this disorder? It is tempting to lay the blame on an over-zealous medical community or a greedy pharmaceutical industry. There is no doubt that they have benefited financially from the sharp rise in bipolar cases among young people.

Is it more a case of kids just being kids—noisy, rambunctious, hyperactive, disorderly? Or is there something else going on here? Curiously, one study released in 2007 indicated that among children diagnosed with bipolar disorder, two-thirds of them were boys.

While there are undeniably cases where children are actually suffering and are helped by diagnosis and medication, I have to wonder about the majority. Little is said in the studies I have read about the impact that family life and the environment may have on the behavior of children diagnosed as bipolar, or even ADHD, yet they can’t be ruled out.

Society as a whole has become irresponsible in its duty to young people. Obsessed with materialism, we have handed over our young people to marketing mavens and corporations eager to make a quick buck. Distracted by entertainment, we have relinquished our children to television babysitters, allowing them to become turned on by and tuned into mindless television programs, video games and advertising that promote violence and premarital sex, among other unhealthy behaviors. Children need human touch and love. All too often, parents give them over to others for care. They also leave them floating in the non-real world of virtual reality.

Thus, it is little wonder that so many children are out of control, disorderly and unable to settle down. But they shouldn’t be victimized and punished for our neglect. Nor should they be drugged into compliance. Our children are screaming for help, but we’re not listening to what they’re saying. Instead, many parents are just hoping to shut them up—whether with drugs or entertainment—and get a little peace and quiet. But that’s not the answer.

A solution will not be found by passing another law. Rather, it must start at home and in the community. When the family breaks down, everything breaks down. We need to start by re-building families. Parents need to be parents and stop over-scheduling their children. They need to start spending time with them.

Finally, parents need to say no to drugs for their children. They need to control what their children watch and listen to. And they need to take off the headphones, turn off the cell phones and try communicating with their children.

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.


Tuesday, June 10, 2008

No Scripture Allowed in Public Library Meeting Room


The hostility toward religion (primarily Christianity) has gone way beyond ludicrous--especially in a country founded by Christians on Christian principles.

From WorldNetDaily comes an article about a public library in Ohio where a meeting room was made available to "all community groups and non-profit organizations engaged in activities that further the Library's mission to be responsive to community needs and to be an integral part of our community." All, that is, except for those who might believe in God:

However, when Cathy Vandergriff asked in person to use a meeting room for a financial planning meeting, the conversation with the library employee took an unwelcome turn.

"When Mrs. Vandergriff indicated that the seminar would be a free ministry to the general public, the employee asked if she would be quoting the Bible in the presentation. Mrs. Vandergriff answered that she would be using the Bible, and the employee informed her that the Library's Policy would therefore not permit her to use the meeting room," the ADF said.

When she followed up with a written request for the use of the facility, an employee again warned about the ban on quoting from the Bible, and the written rejection soon followed. It carried the hand-written notation: "Contact Mr. Vandergriff will be quoting bible versus [sic] explained our meeting room policy."

Are people that ignorant about the First Amendment that they'd turn it upside down? Or is it simple hostility? I honestly can't decide.


Senate Candidate Dykstra: Windfall Profits Tax Would Raise Gas Prices


From today's mailbag:

Sioux Falls, SD - Republican U.S. Senate Candidate Joel Dykstra today said that South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson is taking the wrong approach to protect American consumers and the American economy from rising energy costs.

The Senate struck down legislation on Tuesday co-sponsored by Senator Johnson that would have imposed a windfall profits tax against the five largest U.S. oil companies. Dykstra, who spent 19 years in the international energy development business in the 1980's and 1990's, in both the United States and Europe, said the Johnson approach will fail to solve the problem. "This would result in even higher prices at the pump and discourage American companies from further investment in domestic exploration and production," Dykstra said.

With gasoline prices topping $4 a gallon nationally, Dykstra agrees that consumers are hurting and that something must be done to address rising prices, but he said imposing new taxes is not the right approach. "The strategy of using a windfall profits tax on oil companies was tried by Jimmy Carter in the 1970s and resulted in a loss in domestic production and refining capacity. Since then Congress has failed to take any meaningful steps to solve the problem of America's dependence on foreign supplies and as a result we're paying for it at the gas pump today," he said.

Instead, Dykstra says the U.S. needs a long-term comprehensive energy strategy that focuses on promoting domestic oil production and expanding the refining capacity in the U.S. He said this must be combined with additional renewable energy development and encouragement of new energy technologies.

Dykstra points out that Johnson is canceling out John Thune's common sense votes to address the energy crisis. He said, "Senator Thune is trying to do the right thing by calling for more U.S. exploration and production, but Senator Johnson and his colleagues have voted against him and his good ideas repeatedly."

Dykstra said that Johnson has had many opportunities over his 20 years in Washington to promote American production - but has repeatedly voted to block increased exploration and development efforts.

Dykstra added, "This is another example of Washington business as usual and shows that the majority in Congress prefers to look like they're doing something instead of actually making a difference. Instead of trying to pacify the American people with feel good theatrics we need to take concrete steps to increase America's oil supply from America's reserves."


Barna Study Indicates Obama Favored to Win Election



Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post


By Jennifer Riley
Christian Post Reporter
Tue, Jun. 10 2008 08:26 AM ET


Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is in a very good position to win the November election against Republican rival John McCain, according to a survey released Monday.

Many key factors point strongly in favor of Obama as the next U.S. president, said the national study conducted by The Barna Group.

Obama holds a 50 percent to 35 percent lead over McCain among likely voters, according to the study.

Moreover, those likely to vote for Obama are more solidly backing their candidate compared to those who support McCain. Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of Obama voters are “absolutely certain” that they will vote for him, whereas only 59 percent of McCain voters are equally committed.

Obama’s supporters are also much more confident that the Illinois senator will win (53 percent), compared to those that say they will vote for McCain (31 percent). Research of past elections indicate that such confidence affects voters’ likelihood to turn out to vote.

Also what Obama has going for him is the excitement of registered Democrats for his campaign (48 percent), versus the significantly lower enthusiasm from registered Republicans for their candidate (30 percent).

Other factors in favor of Obama include the relatively few numbers of undecided voters – just 15 percent of the registered voters who are likely to vote have not chosen a candidate to support, and the large number of newly registered young adults who are heavily Democratic and strongly leaning towards Obama.

“The national survey showed that there are no specific reasons to believe that Sen. McCain is likely to win the election,” the Barna study commented

Although McCain has significantly higher support among evangelicals, Republicans, and conservatives, the backings of these groups are still not enough to give him the lead in November, according to the study.

What McCain and his supporters can hope for is the following possibilities:

• Obama commits a major mistake or there is significant negative revelations about the Democratic candidate
• A massive number of people who are either not currently registered to vote, or registered voters who are not currently likely to vote in November, actually turn out to vote and select Sen. McCain by a substantial margin
• Obama supporters do not turn out for the election because of election fatigue or because they assume he is likely to win and does not need their vote
• Possible racial backlash, as some analysts have suggested, because he is black
• The vice presidential candidates of both presidential nominees sway voters towards McCain
• Independent voters swing towards the Republican candidate
• The eruption of a major national security issue where McCain can claim he has more experience to better handle the related defense and security issues
• Clinton and Obama do not resolve their rivalry, resulting in McCain’s gain of former Clinton-backers.

“In order for Sen. McCain to win in November, it seems that several of these factors would have to occur in order to change a sufficient number of votes to the Republican candidate,” the Barna study noted.

George Barna, the founder of The Barna Group and the one who conducted the survey, commented that while presidential campaigns have a history of surprises that alter the election outcome, several factors in this year’s election caused many Americans to already make up their mind on which candidate they will vote for.

The factors include the race starting “so early” and extensive media coverage.

"Senator McCain has a difficult, uphill battle ahead of him. Running a traditional campaign is not likely to either motivate the unmotivated voters or dislodge the voters already committed to Senator Obama,” Barna said. “He will need to bust outside the normal flow of political activity and thought to pull out a victory. Senator Obama needs to remain focused, consistent and steady in order to prevail in November."

The Barna report is based on telephone interviews of a random sample of 1003 adults across the United States, age 18 and older, in May 2008.


Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


 
Clicky Web Analytics