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, August 02, 2008

Creation: The Evidence of Physics

From the fantastic DVD 'The Case for a Creator'


Part 1:


Part 2:


A Recipe for Harmony

American Minute from William J. Federer

Navy torpedo boat PT 109 was rammed AUGUST 2, 1943, by a Japanese destroyer and sunk. The commander sustained permanent back injuries yet helped survivors swim miles to shore, which unfortunately was behind enemy lines in the Solomon Islands. After a daring rescue, he was awarded the Medal of heroism. Though one of his brothers was killed in the war, he went on to become a Congressman, Senator, and the 35th U.S. President.

His name was John F. Kennedy, who stated in his Inaugural Address: "Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."

In the White House Rose Garden, November 21, 1961, John F. Kennedy said: "When we all - regardless of our particular religious convictions - draw our guidance and inspiration, and really, in a sense, moral direction, from the same general area, the Bible, the Old and the New Testaments, we have every reason to believe that our various religious denominations should live together in the closest harmony."

Kennedy concluded: "The basic presumption of the moral law, the existence of God, man's relationship to Him - there is generally consensus on those questions."

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.


Answering the Call, Choosing the Path

A long time ago, God clearly laid out two paths for a nation. He outlined all the good things that would happen if that nation believed him, followed him and obeyed him; he also outlined all the bad, all the evil, all the suffering that would happen if they did not follow him.

This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.

I think that every nation has that clear choice of two paths, though seldom is it laid out so clearly as it was to Israel some 3,000 years ago.

But it was laid out pretty clearly to the people of the fledgling United States some 200 years ago, and ironically through the voice of one of the least religious of the Founders:
I've lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men. If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that 'except the Lord build the house they labor in vain who build it.' I firmly believe this, and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. - Benjamin Franklin

It was at that time that the congress of the United States, even as it was attempting to draft a constitution, began the tradition which continues today of praying at the opening of each session.

Since that time, however, we have drifted from the course of life. Indeed, some 50-60 years ago, the United States began to choose to abandon its allegiance and obedience to God.

Over the course of these recent decades, we have chosen to live and govern our nation by the man-made philosophies of Marxism and humanism, rather than by God's wisdom. We have made the choice to elevate sexual license over responsibility and God's plan for human sexuality. We have chosen to murder 50 million innocent unborn children rather than face the responsibility to nurture and care for the human life--created in the image of God--that our bodies have produced. We have chosen greed and the yoke of government over the light yoke of God.

And we are paying the price of choosing that path, just as God foretold 3,000 years ago. For our choices, we are receiving rampant crime, death, divorce, sexually transmitted diseases, high illegitimate births, poverty, and suffering.

We have chosen the path of death, and that is what we are receiving: death of innocence, death of dignity, death of spirit, death of hope, and death of life.

But God is patient and merciful. Even as wicked as Nineveh was, it wasn't too late for them to change their ways and turn back to God. God offered a chance like this to Israel, too.

And maybe there's a chance for America, as well.

WorldNetDaily reports that TheCall is calling on people to come to Washington D.C. August 16 for a 12-hour assembly of fasting and prayer for the country.

No one knows the future, but based on the clear and willful choices our nation (made up of its people) has been making means that God won't put up with our insolence much longer. And when that day comes, the suffering we've seen so far will pale in comparison.

Below is a video about this event, containing some footage from previous such events. Some of the folks in the video may seem radical to reserved Baptist types (I grew up Baptist) and to secular people. But it will take a radical change of direction to put our nation back on the course of life.

Consider joining TheCall in Washington Aug. 16. If you can't go, consider prayer and fasting wherever you are.

We face yet another choice at yet another crossroads coming in November. While those choices do not contrast as clearly as I would like, nevertheless they remain very different, and will produce radically different results.

Will we choose the way of life, or the way of death?


Chinese Totalitarianism, American-Style

By John W. Whitehead

“Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.”—Thomas Jefferson

“China is becoming more like us in very visible ways (Starbucks, Hooters, cellphones that are cooler than ours),” observed Naomi Klein in Rolling Stone in May 2008, “and we are becoming more like China in less visible ones (torture, warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention, though not nearly on the Chinese scale).”

Klein’s expose, “China’s All-Seeing Eye,” sheds light on how U.S. defense contractors have been helping China build the prototype for a high-tech police state that will be put to the test with the upcoming Beijing Olympics. It’s a must-read for anyone who is concerned that one more terrorist attack is all it will take for the U.S. to cross over into a totalitarian police state.

The reach of the technology being implemented is alarming. Think electronic concentration camps, complete with high-tech surveillance systems and internet and cell phone censorship programs. What is more disconcerting is the extent to which U.S. companies have helped China oppress its people.

In the wake of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, Congress actually passed legislation that was intended to prevent U.S. companies from helping Chinese authorities suppress human rights and democracy. Since then, American corporations have been working to side-step the prohibition while exploiting every loophole and simultaneously lobbying Congress to lift the restrictions and allow them free play in China’s homeland security market.

This includes security and communications giants such as IBM, General Electric, United Technologies, Honeywell, DuPont and Motorola, as well as technology giants such as Google, Microsoft and Yahoo. The motivation, of course, is money. According to Klein, “the global homeland-security business is now worth an estimated $200 billion — more than Hollywood and the music industry combined.” Thus, for the sake of greed, these companies have become turncoats to freedom, completely selling out America’s once-cherished ideals of democracy.

Take Operation Golden Shield, for instance, a massive surveillance system tied into a central database containing photos and information on every Chinese citizen. This intelligence project will give the Chinese government the unprecedented ability to track the movements and activities of its citizens. Coincidentally, the American mastermind behind the facial-recognition software being used by China dubbed his plan for a similarly vast security network in the U.S. “Operation Noble Shield.”

“The end goal,” says Klein, “is to use the latest people-tracking technology—thoughtfully supplied by American giants like IBM, Honeywell and General Electric—to create an airtight consumer cocoon: a place where Visa cards, Adidas sneakers, China Mobile cellphones, McDonald’s Happy Meals, Tsingtao beer and UPS delivery (to name just a few of the official sponsors of the Beijing Olympics) can be enjoyed under the unblinking eye of the state, without the threat of democracy breaking out.”

The Chinese city of Shenzhen is serving as the testing grounds for Golden Shield. With more than 200,000 surveillance cameras already installed—and that number expected to rise to two million cameras in three years, Shenzhen’s citizens will likely be the most “watched” people in the world. Every camera in the city will be networked to one central location that will be armed with the latest facial recognition software from the American company L-1 Identity Solutions. The system will be able to scan a face and match it to a picture from the central database in a matter of seconds. To supplement the cameras, Chinese citizens will be required to carry electronic national ID cards that are also linked to the central database, giving China an unprecedented ability to track its citizens—only one small step removed from a total Orwellian security state.

China, of course, has been moving in this direction for a long time. Its handling of the Tibetan riots earlier this year is just a precursor of what it hopes to accomplish in terms of eradicating dissent, limiting access to “dangerous” information and controlling its population. As Klein noted, “every supposedly liberating tool of the Information Age—cellphones, satellite television, the Internet—[was] transformed into a method of repression and control.” For example, internet access was cut off and outgoing cell phone calls were blocked, while residents found themselves besieged with propaganda text messages from government officials. Video footage pulled from surveillance cameras was also edited to make the Tibetan protesters appear to be the aggressors; still images were posted on the internet as part of an all-out manhunt to capture the demonstrators.

The amazing thing about all this is that American taxpayers are funding China’s authoritarian efforts. Our taxes fund research grants for companies like L-1 Identity Solutions, which in turn sell the technology to China, which then uses it to quell freedom and dissent. Other companies are reportedly just as guilty of selling out: Google built a special Chinese search engine that blocks sensitive material, Microsoft took down political blogs at the behest of the Chinese government, and Yahoo has handed over e-mail account information that led to the arrest and imprisonment of a high-profile Chinese journalist, to mention just a few.

And if you think what happens in China stays in China, you’d better think again. As Klein warns, “The global corporations currently earning superprofits from this social experiment are unlikely to be content if the lucrative new market remains confined to cities such as Shenzhen. Like everything else assembled in China with American parts, Police State 2.0 is ready for export to a neighborhood near you.”

Make no mistake: what we see in China today is the prototype for an electronic concentration camp in the U.S. The groundwork has already been laid. American cities keep installing greater numbers of surveillance cameras. The government continues to amass record amounts of data on its citizens through the use of private data-mining companies. And American telecommunications companies have been given a “Get Out of Jail Free” card, by way of congressional legislation, retroactively pardoning them for illegally turning over customer information to the National Security Agency. If the government can simply order the telecommunications companies to take illegal actions with no repercussions, what’s to stop it from ordering them to shut down cellular service during protests in America?

“I don’t know of an intelligence-gathering operation in the world that, when given a new toy, doesn’t use it,” remarked Steve Vickers, a former head of criminal intelligence for the Hong Kong police who now leads a consulting firm. This is as true for the United States as it is for China. If American security organizations are given the same tools as the Chinese, there is no reason to think they will not use them to the same extent.


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.


Mortgaging our children's future

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

A key feature of the housing bill that President Bush just signed into law was the federal bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

These are the two taxpayer backed "Government Sponsored Enterprises" that own or guarantee almost half of all mortgages in the country.

Of the many words written about this bailout, those in a New York Times op-ed by William Poole, former head of the Federal Reserve Bank of Saint Louis, contain one of the most relevant and powerful messages:

"Critics of the congressional housing package complain that we are now committing taxpayers to huge new outlays to rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That view is wrong: Congressional inaction over the past 15 years had already committed taxpayers to the bailout."

Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal reviewed in his paper the coverage that it had been giving since 2001 to the rot inside these two entities.

Gigot also points out that, despite the rationale that we allegedly need these taxpayer-backed enterprises in order for those of modest incomes to get mortgages, in 2002, Fannie Mae "was able to pay no fewer than 21 of its executives a million dollars," and in 2003, its CEO, Franklin Raines, who was ousted for financial shenanigans at the firm, was paid $20 million. And, he left with a $25 million retirement package.

Consider, for starters, what all this tells us today about the man who promises to clean up Washington, Sen. "Change We Can Believe In" Barack Obama.

Raines is reported to be currently serving as an informal adviser to the Obama campaign on housing and mortgage issues.

Raines' predecessor, James Johnson, also the beneficiary of tens of millions in compensation running this sweet deal, where company executives share the risks with taxpayers but not the profits, was Obama's choice to head his vice president vetting team. After howling from the press, Johnson stepped aside.

During the time when the Wall Street Journal, among others, was writing about the improprieties at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both entities paid out a reported $170 million to lobbyists to keep Congress disinterested. And they succeeded.

None of this seems to present a problem for Obama. The man who campaigned through the primaries about slaying lobbyist dragons in Washington appears quite at home with those who benefited from these lobbying efforts.

Now he has given the Full Monty embrace to bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and keeping them propped up forever by us taxpayers. And, even making them more influential by raising the size of the mortgages they can guarantee.

Say what you wish about John McCain, but he's said and written that Fannie and Freddie should be sliced, diced, and privatized. This is a position held by many respected economists, including Poole, who writes in a New York Times op-ed that what they claim to need government guarantees to do, the private market can handle quite well, thank you.

Beyond the presidential campaign, consider why barely 10 percent of Americans express confidence in Congress.

Congress ignored for years the festering problems at Fannie and Freddie, despite lights shined on these problems. Now we taxpayers (you and me) are exposed to some $5 trillion of their debt.

Unfortunately, this political irresponsibility is the rule rather than the exception.

This is the same Congress that woke up one night to discover 12 million illegal immigrants in our country.

And the same Congress that continues to ignore the $50 trillion or so (whose counting?) in unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare.

The pathetic dynamics are quite clear. Being honest about problems means taking responsibility and making hard decisions. Why do that when you can ignore them, let them fester and grow, and pawn them off on the next generation when you will be long gone?

Government -- federal, state, and local -- now takes about one of every three of the dollars we produce. Estimates are that by mid-century it will be more than one of every two.

Are we going to be in rocking chairs telling our grandchildren how we remember when America was a great country?

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, August 01, 2008

Barack 'Robin Hood' Obama

I hear Barack Obama has a plan help the poor with $1000 each.

From WorldNetDaily:

The full text of the plan is highlighted with subheads that read, "Take a Portion of the Windfall Profits from Big Oil and Put $1,000 in the Pockets of Working Families" and "Forcing big oil companies to take a reasonable share of their record breaking windfall profits and use it to help struggling families with direct relief."

There's just one little problem with Robin Hood's scheme: that money doesn't belong to him. It also doesn't belong to Congress. It also doesn't belong to the people he wants to give it to.

It belongs to the oil companies that produce and deliver a vital product to Americans. For the public school graduates out there, please allow me to point out that oil companies in America are private organizations, not government agencies.

If I looked at a successful business in town and came to the conclusion that this business, while operating legally, was making too much money, and I walked in and grabbed their money, and took it out in the parking lot and started giving it to people as they walked by, would I be a great man for doing that?

Or would I be a thief?

So why is it different when Barack Obama or some other politician steals the property from one private entity and gives it to another?


House Republicans Grow a Part of the Anatomy

Now this is what we need to see more of from the national Republican Party!

WorldNetDaily reports U.S. House Republicans, frustrated at Speaker Nancy Pelosi's refusal to bring oil drilling legislation to a vote, are continuing to discuss congressional energy policy (or lack thereof) and are having some fun at it:

Pretending to be a Democrat, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., stood on the other side of the chamber and listed all of the Republican bills killed by Democrats, Politico reported.

"I am a Democrat and here is my energy plan," he said, holding up a picture of an old VW Bug with a sail attached to it.

Nunes paraded the picture around the House floor to the cheers of the gallery crowd.

No wonder House Republicans are upset; Democrats apparently don't care how much Americans have to pay for gas.

From Fox News:
"I just saw one of the Democrats interviewed on television. The question was, if oil was $10 a gallon and you knew exactly where to get it in Alaska or on the coast, would you drill there, and there was no answer," House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, of Missouri, said before a last-minute gathering before reporters late Friday.

In what might be a modern twist on Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake," Democrats seem to be saying, "Let them ride their bicycles."

Democrats are also doing their best to run off reporters and get Capitol Police to do their bidding, but word is still getting out.

But The Politico is still around taking note of what's going on:

Politico described the scene on the floor as "kind of crazy," noting members normally are not allowed to speak directly to the visitor gallery, and cheering from the gallery is not allowed.

But House members have been walking up and down the floor to loud cheers, including standing ovations.

Rep. Don Manzullo, R-Ill., brought the crowd to its feet with a rousing speech that accused Democrats of stifling dissent, referencing President John Quincy Adams, who returned as a House member after his term in the White House.

I love it!

They're fighting for good policy...and having a blast while doing it!

Could this be the start of something great? Congressional Republicans with guts and gusto?


Working Together Despite Differences

The issue of Republican values has been a recurring theme for several years now, not only on the national stage but here at home in South Dakota.

Of late, it has become an intense topic on the Right side of the South Dakota blogosphere, with several posts from Sibby Online, SD Wingnuts, some from the South Dakota War College, and the South Dakota GOP Republican Tide.

I think it's understandable for a political party to be a bit stand-offish or distance itself from members who represent more of the opposition's values than the values of their own party, or who work actively against members of their own party while going out of their way to help the opposing party.

Ironically, however, it seems that sometimes money can overcome even an obvious divergence of philosophy. This should not be.

It is equally disappointing when the party apparatus fails to support their own candidates who uphold party values, just because those candidates may not be as polished as they would like. If party operatives would prefer candidates with more polish and finesse, then they should be proactively working to groom such candidates; if they fail to do so, they should wholeheartedly support those candidate who are willing step up and uphold party values--even if that candidate wouldn't have been their first choice.

Thankfully it hasn't happened too often, but seeing how some Republican candidates have been treated in recent years has been disappointing and heartbreaking. The way the Party has treated them, you'd think they lacked adherence to Republican ideals, instead of just lacking fancy clothes and a glossy presentation.

Because philosophy is what really counts--or should really count.

We can work together to advance the Republican agenda, even if all of us aren't advancing all parts of it.

The "Big Tent" philosophy is not and never has been about assimilating all the values and agenda items of every person who joins the Republican Party. The Big Tent philosophy says people from all walks are welcome to come into the tent and work with us on the issues where they agree with us--but not come in and try to liberalize the party.

If a Big Tent attender who doesn't embrace the entire Republican agenda can't honor the fact that they're a guest in someone else's house, we need to point to the door and let them know it works both ways if they don't like our home. They're welcome to stay as long as they don't try to take over the place.

We don't need a purge, but we need to be clear on the party's foundation and it's intended destination. A cold shoulder to those who insist on a detour will usually work just as well as a boot in the hind parts.

If we're advancing a particular conservative value, I'll work with people of other Christian denominations, other religions, other political inclinations and even sexual proclivities. But I will not embrace their values that I don't agree with, especially those which are contrary to conservative ideals.

When I was in the military, I worked with people of different religions, ethnic backgrounds, political philosophies, education levels, and even nationalities. Our common goal was the defense of the United States and her allies.

I'll work with Democrats--and I do, on pro-life issues, because some Democrats, while embracing mostly liberal values, still recognize the value of human life.

But I won't stand idly by when someone whose values are more in line with the Democrat Party comes into the Republican Party and tries to make it Democrat-Lite.

If someone wants to advance liberal values, there's a place for that: the Democrat Party.

If someone wants to belong to a liberal party with liberal values, there's a place for that: the Democrat Party.

When people are given a choice of the genuine article or a cheap imitation, at the same price they'll take the genuine article every time. The Republican Party won't influence people and win elections by trying to imitate a liberal political party.

Look at the South Dakota Republican Party platform; you won't find a liberal agenda there.

Look at the South Dakota Republican Party resolutions for 2008; for the most part, you wont' find a liberal agenda there.

Look at the core values of the Republican Party, which concisely define what it means to be a conservative and a Republican (you won't find a liberal agenda there):

I BELIEVE the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person’s dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.

I BELIEVE in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability.

I BELIEVE free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity.

I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn.

I BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations and that the best government is that which governs least.

I BELIEVE the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people.

I BELIEVE Americans retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times.

I BELIEVE Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world.

Finally, I BELIEVE the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.

Our South Dakota Republican Party is still a good, conservative political party, despite a few missteps and reprobates in our number.

Though some have tried, our state party has not become the inept, compromising, elitist group we see on the national front that is often working harder for the values of the other party than they are their own.

But it won't stay that way if we fail to remain vigilant. It won't remain strong if we compromise on our core values. It won't retain it's value if it doesn't remain a distinctive vehicle for conservative ideas.

Conservatives of all degrees, let's work together where our philosophy aligns with the Republican Party.

And where it doesn't...you're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to liberalize the Republican Party.

Now let's all pull together to send a couple of good conservatives (Chris Lien and Joel Dykstra) to Washington in November, and fill the halls and chambers of the capitol in Pierre with good candidates who uphold Republican values.


Video: The One (Barack Obama)

This is a great one of His Lordship Barack the Beneficent.



NewsBusted Conservative Comedy 8/1/2008

Topics in today's show:

--John McCain and Barack Obama nearly even in latest polls

--Dan Rather's latest conspiracy theory

--Profits at the New York Times down 82 percent

--Greek court says not all lesbians are from Lesbos

--Mississippi ranked America's fattest state

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



Marriage Supporters Sue Over Prejudicial Wording of Calif. Attorney Gen



Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post


By Lawrence Jones
Christian Post Reporter
Fri, Aug. 01 2008 12:03 PM EDT


SAN FRANCISCO - Supporters of the California marriage amendment have filed suit over the recent wording changes to Proposition 8, decrying that the new ballot title and summary creates prejudice against the measure.

When Californians step into voting booths this November, Prop. 8 supporters don't want them to decide on a measure entitled, "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry," as Attorney General Jerry Brown has re-written. Neither do the traditional marriage backers want the ballot summary to read: "Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."

In papers filed Tuesday, Prop. 8 attorney Andrew Pugno, argued that the new ballot language is "inherently argumentative and highly likely to create prejudice" against the measure, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

The lawsuit, filed in Sacramento County Superior Court, is asking the court to revert the ballot wording back to the original title and summary that over 1.2 millions voters approved when they signed a petition to place the measure on the Nov. 4 ballot.

Prop. 8 originally went by the title, "Limit on Marriage," with the first sentence of the summary reading: "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Brown said he changed to ballot to reflect the May 15 Supreme Court decision to allow same-sex couples to marry.

But Jennifer Kerns, a spokeswoman for ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8, pointed out that never before has a statewide ballot used an active verb like "eliminates" in the title, according to The Mercury News.

She said such changes are unfair and should be undone.

"We feel the ballot language is so inflammatory that it will unduly prejudice voters against the measure," Kerns told the San Jose-based paper.

Supporters of the amendment have only a few days to overturn the new language before ballot documents are sent to the state printer by Aug. 11. They are seeking an expedited hearing before the court.

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


Archbishop of Uganda Says Anglican Head Betrayed Biblically Faithful Churches



Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post


By Maria Mackay
Christian Today Reporter
Fri, Aug. 01 2008 09:00 AM EDT

The Archbishop of Uganda, the Most Rev. Henry Orombi, has accused the head of the Anglican Communion of betraying biblically faithful churches by inviting bishops involved in the consecration of an openly gay bishop to their global conference.

Orombi, one of more than 200 bishops boycotting the two-week Lambeth Conference in Canterbury, said in a comment for The Times that the current system for appointing the Archbishop of Canterbury, currently Dr. Rowan Williams, was a “remnant of colonialism.”

“Even the Pope is elected by his peers. But what Anglicans have is a man appointed by a secular government,” wrote Orombi.

“Over the past five years, we have come to see this as a remnant of British colonialism, and it is not serving us well,” he added. “The spiritual leadership of a global communion of independent and autonomous provinces should not be reduced to one man appointed by a secular government.”

Bishops are in the process of drafting final reflections, largely drawn from the outcomes of the discussion groups at the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference. In the document, the bishops acknowledge a “lack of confidence” in the structures of Communion.

They also state, “We must acknowledge that there are great tensions in our relationship at present, and an erosion of trust between us.”

Nevertheless, bishops at Lambeth want to work together and some have called Orombi's remarks disrespectful.

"They were very strong words, I must say, especially since the Archbishop [of Canterbury] has tried to keep the church together," said the Rt. Rev. Ragnar Persenius, Bishop of Upssala, in Communion through the Swedish Lutheran Church, according to VirtueOnline, a conservative Anglican publication.

"I wonder what conservatives are doing to keep the church together. They do not seem to contribute to a solution. Some are not even speaking to others. Although they have serious theological disagreements, they also have to get into the conversation," Persenius added, while noting that most Lambeth attendees "want to stay together."

Orombi’s attack comes as bishops debate the most divisive issue in the Anglican Communion, human sexuality. The 2003 consecration of openly gay bishop Gene Robinson widened rifts within the global Communion.

Bishops said that Thursday’s discussions on sexuality had been characterized by generosity and respect.

“We haven’t suddenly reached a consensus about the issues of human sexuality. The problems are not all solved but there are significant differences,” the Most Rev. Philip Aspinall, Archbishop of the Anglican Church of Australia and spokesman for the Conference, told reporters.

The Chair of the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa, the Most Rev. Ian Ernest, commented, “We are able to look at each other. We are able to shed tears with one another, but at the same time knowing that we’ve got different ways and different convictions.”

On Friday, bishops are tackling the controversial Anglican Covenant on structures of unity in the Communion.

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


Obama on Kindergarten Sex Ed

ABC reports Barack Obama thinks kindergarteners should be taught sex ed.

ABC News' Teddy Davis and Lindsey Ellerson Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is "age-appropriate," is "the right thing to do."

"I remember Alan Keyes . . . I remember him using this in his campaign against me," Obama said in reference to the conservative firebrand who ran against him for the U.S. Senate in 2004. Sex education for kindergarteners had become an issue in his race against Keyes because of Obama’s work on the issue as chairman of the health committee in the Illinois state Senate.

"'Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners,'" said Obama mimicking Keyes' distinctive style of speech. "Which -- I didn’t know what to tell him (laughter)."

"But it’s the right thing to do," Obama continued, "to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools."

Here is a link to the video where he says this.

Maybe if our education system spent more time on the basics (reading, writing, arithmetic, etc.) it wouldn't be turning out so many illiterate young adults who are clueless about anything important.

The last thing in the world kindergarteners need is sex ed of any kind.

They won't even hit puberty for many years, much less be old enough to responsibly engage in sexual activity. They won't hit the age of legal consent for more than 10 years.

And if kindergarteners do need sex ed, then our society is farther gone than even I realized.

There's a bad day coming for these liberals who are so eager to hyper-sexualize our culture and lead people into dangerous and immoral behavior.

They ought to be ashamed...but they're so far gone, they have no shame.


Judge: Mt. Soledad Cross Can Remain



Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post


By Lawrence Jones
Christian Post Reporter
Thu, Jul. 31 2008 09:03 PM EDT


A giant cross on top of San Diego's Mount Soledad that memorializes war veterans does not violate the separation of Church and State, a federal judge has ruled.

The 29-foot cross was erected by the Mount Soledad Memorial Association in 1954 to honor Korean War veterans.

A lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in the late 1980s sought to remove the cross. The plaintiff was atheist war veteran Philip Paulson, who argued that the cross was a religious symbol and that its display on public land was unconstitutional.

The decision handed down Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Larry Alan Burns resolved the 20-year legal controversy, which has been visited by both the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress.

In his 36-page opinion, Burns ruled that the memorial cross held more secular value in its message to honor war veterans than religious significance.

"The court finds the memorial at Mt. Soledad, including its Latin cross, communicates the primarily non-religious messages of military service, death, and sacrifice," Burns wrote in his decision. "As such, despite its location on public land, the memorial is constitutional."

The original cross was erected in 1913 but replaced over the years when damaged. The current concrete cross is the centerpiece of Mt. Soledad Veteran Memorial, surrounded by six concentric walls of granite plaques honoring war veterans.

Supporters of the monument had fought for the famed cross to be recognized for its historic significance. But in May 2006 a federal judge ruled in favor of the cross's removal and imposed a $5,000 fine for each day the monument remained standing after a 90-day deadline. The Supreme Court blocked the ruling, however, allowing Congress time to transfer the cross to Federal ownership under a law signed by President Bush in August.

In his decision Tuesday, Burns noted that the cross is also displayed "along with numerous purely secular symbols in an overall context that reinforces its secular message."

William Kellogg, president of the nonprofit Mount Soledad Memorial Association, told the Union-Tribune of San Diego he was pleased with the judge's ruling.

“That makes me feel terrific because that truly is what it's all about, honoring veterans,” Kellogg said. “Our mission has been to communicate that to the public for so many years, so I think the language there is very appropriate.”

The ACLU said they may appeal the decision.

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


America’s Dirty Little Secret of Child Prostitution

By John W. Whitehead

Carissa Phelps was only 12 years old when she ran away from the Fresno County group home where her mother had left her. Hungry and alone, the runaway was befriended by a man three times her age. And the price of a hot dog and Pepsi was all it cost the man to get her to a seedy motel.

Carissa soon found herself drawn into the world of child prostitution. It begins with men who first befriend lost girls like Carissa, then force them to have sex with other adult men and take whatever money they earn. Twenty years later, Carissa has managed to escape the desperate “survival sex” lifestyle that has become a dead-end road for many young people.

Others, however, are not so fortunate. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, child prostitution has become a problem of epidemic proportions, with estimates ranging between 300,000 and 800,000 (five million or more are prostituted globally). Those figures are likely even higher when one considers how many street kids—runaways, thrown-aways and cast-offs from the foster care system—remain unaccounted for in America. Left to fend for themselves, these young girls and boys quickly become prey for small-time pimps and organized sex-trafficking rings.

Amazingly, many children are introduced to prostitution by family members or acquaintances such as parents, older siblings or boyfriends. The internet, especially websites such as Craigslist, Facebook and MySpace, has made it even easier to prey on children without being easily detected by law enforcement.

Child prostitution is America’s “dirty little secret,” one that cuts across racial and socio-economic divides. As Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin observed, “It’s one of those issues that doesn’t get discussed and therefore there’s an assumption that perhaps either it doesn’t exist at all or the young women and girls who are prostitutes are there by their own free will.” Yet there is little to suggest that these children ever willingly choose such a lifestyle. Even the term “child prostitute” is something of a misnomer, suggesting that it is the child—and not the adult handler—who has opted to sell him or herself for sex.

Children who are sold for sex (the majority are female) typically range in age from 11 to 17, with some as young as 9 years old. Once they have been lured or forced into prostituting themselves, these children are subjected to a full range of injuries, diseases, pregnancies, mental issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder and depression and drug addiction, not to mention criminal and delinquency charges if they are caught. For those who are “rescued” out of the system, the stigma of having once been part of the sex trade is hard to overcome.

Yet while most people are barely aware of the sex trafficking industry, it infects suburbs, cities and towns across the nation. “This is not a problem that only happens in New York and Los Angeles and San Francisco,” stated Ernie Allen of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. “This happens in smaller communities. The only way not to find this in any American city is simply not to look for it.”

Unfortunately, Americans have become good at turning away from things that make us uncomfortable or stray too far from our picture-perfect images of ourselves. Yet the harsh reality is that this epidemic is largely one of our own making. Simply put, we have failed to prioritize or protect our young people, leaving them to fend for themselves.

There are a multitude of factors that have contributed to the explosive growth of child prostitution in recent years. These range from the rampant availability of porn over the internet and the unabashed peddling of sex by advertisers and the entertainment industry to a complete lack of role models for young people and a failure by religious organizations to engage or impact them in any meaningful way.

Yet it is the family—and its breakdown over the past 40 years—that has had the greatest impact on young people today. The rise of single-parent homes, the drop in marriage rates and soaring divorce rates are a testament to this breakdown. Just consider the family background of a child who has fallen into prostitution: typically, it includes an absentee parent, marital separation, domestic violence, substance abuse, prostitution activities within the family and neighborhood influence.

Sadly, while we as a society have failed to adequately register the importance of family on our children, those who prey on young people understand it all too well. According to a study conducted through the University of Pennsylvania, 75% of known child prostitutes work for pimps, who are adept at creating a pseudo-family environment by promising money, love and affection to children coming from dysfunctional homes who are seeking care and nourishment. These sexual predators then strip these children of whatever money they make and severely abuse them in order to establish a relationship of dependency.

So where does this leave the thousands of young people forced to sell themselves for sex every day just to survive to see the next day?

There are few cut-and-dried solutions. We can continue to throw money at the government—with its task forces, sting operations and initiatives—and comfort ourselves that something is being done. We can continue to give money to our churches and synagogues in the hopes that they will do something, perhaps by focusing on the inner cities and offering counseling and assistance to these cast-off children. We can even contact our representatives and insist that they get tough on crime by showing “no leniency” to sexual predators.

However, until each of us gets serious about this crisis, until we all start doing our part to target the underlying societal causes—poverty, drug abuse and dysfunctional family units—the gains will continue to be minimal. And tragically, it will be the children who pay the price for our neglect.

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.


Thursday, July 31, 2008

Anglicans Disagree Over Biblical Authority



Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post


By Lillian Kwon
Christian Post Reporter
Thu, Jul. 31 2008 06:12 PM EDT


Before entering talks on human sexuality on Thursday, Anglican leaders took a deep look at the issue underlying the ongoing and highly publicized gay debate – the Bible.

"The issue of homosexuality comes down to an issue about the Bible," said the Most Rev. David Moxon, Archbishop of New Zealand, according to VirtueOnline, a conservative Anglican publication. "Underneath all the discussions and debates is how do we view the Bible?"

Archbishop Phillip Aspinall, primate of the Anglican Church of Australia, said a lot of the division in the Anglican Communion "has to do with the Bible."

Bishops attending the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference in Canterbury, England, this week spent Wednesday in conversations under the theme "Living Under Scripture: the Bishop and the Bible in Mission."

"Everyone in the Anglican Communion has their own process of making sense of the Bible. People who claim that their way of making sense is taking the Bible more seriously than someone else are just trying to talk more loudly or stamp their foot more firmly," said Prof. Gerald West, Professor of Old Testament at the University of Kwazulu-Natal in South Africa and coordinator of the Bible Studies at Lambeth, according to VirtueOnline.

While noting that he doesn't believe there are wide differences in the Anglican Communion over biblical authority, West said Anglicans maintain a "common commitment" to Scripture, as reported by VirtueOnline.

During the discussions, bishops were asked to look at the way they view details of Scripture from various perspectives and to discuss whether the theme of homosexuality is in the Old and New Testaments in the same way that it exists for marriage, polygamy and rape, according to the Anglican Journal.

"Is there such a thing as homosexuality in the ancient world? Did it exist then?” West explained. He also said bishops looked at the context in which Scripture is engaged.

In most cases, according to West, "what you think is important in your context shapes the way you see Scripture."

Weeks before the Lambeth Conference, renowned evangelical theologian Dr. James Innell Packer affirmed that homosexual behavior is sin and that those who affirm such behavior "are understanding the Bible in a very different way from that in which the rest of us think that it asks to be understood."

"God uses language to tell us things, and the Bible is the language that He's used," he said. "The Bible is personal communication from the Creator to us creatures, and in personal communication you speak and write to be understood. You don't communicate in code; you don't say one thing in a way which is intended to be understood as meaning its opposite."

"God is, we believe, straight forward; the Bible, in that sense, is straight forward, and Paul in 1st Corinthians is straight forward."

Packer left the Anglican Church of Canada earlier this year, citing "poisonous liberalism" and arguing that top leaders in the Canadian church body have changed their interpretation of Christianity.

"I'm simply being an old-fashioned mainstream Anglican," Packer said.

The Anglican Communion has been wracked by divisions, particularly since the 2003 consecration of openly gay bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire and the blessing of same-sex unions in the British Columbia diocese of New Westminster.

Conservative Anglicans have argued that The Episcopal Church in the United States and the Anglican Church of Canada have departed from Scripture and Christian orthodoxy.

According to Moxon, Wednesday was the first time Anglican bishops together discussed the question of "how do we use the Bible?" He added that the intent of the discussions was to simply ask "What’s the high common ground when we approach the Bible?"

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


Christian Theologian Calls for Tolerance of Islamic Ad



Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post


By Michelle A. Vu
Christian Post Reporter
Thu, Jul. 31 2008 01:48 PM EDT


Authorities should tolerate an initiative to place ads about Islam in New York subway cars, said a Christian theologian with expertise in Islamic strategies.

Several Muslim groups, including main sponsor Islamic Circle of North America, are supporting a campaign to feature 1,000 ads promoting Islam in New York’s subway trains in September to coincide with the Islamic holiday of Ramadan. The ads feature phrases associated with Islam such as “Head Scarf?” or “Prophet Muhammad?” and the phrase “You deserve to know” along with the Web site address WhyIslam.org, according to CNN.

Critics of the ads have accused Islamic Circle of North America of having ties with terrorists, and urged the Metropolitan Transit Authority to reject the ads.

But Dr. William Wagner, author of the book How Islam Plans to Change the World and president of Olivet University International in San Francisco, believes the American principles of freedom of religion and innocent until proven guilty give a “broad level of protection” to the Islamic groups that want to run the ads.

“I think that they have this right,” said Wagner, who was an International Mission Board missionary with the Southern Baptist Convention for 31 years in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, to The Christian Post. “In America we must tolerate these acts even if this would never be accepted in Islamic societies.”

But he quickly switched gears and expressed concerns about Muslims becoming increasingly more aggressive in drawing Americans to their faith.

During the last 20 years, the scholar on Islamic strategies noted that Muslims have been studying Christian mission methods and have become “very effective” in applying most of these techniques.

“In fact, they have become very effective missionaries for Islam in the Western World,” Wagner stated. “We will see much more of this in the future.”

He added that some Islamic leaders proclaim that the whole world will be Muslim by the year 2080.

“This advertising blitz is only one of an expected barrage of missionary advertising in the future,” Wagner said.

Regarding the allegation of the ad sponsors being linked to terrorists, Wagner responded that this is to be expected. Based on his studies of Islam in America, he contends it is “very difficult” to completely separate Muslim groups from terrorists, especially groups with more aggressive Muslim missionaries.

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, has urged the Metropolitan Transit Authority to not run the ads because of what he believes to be its connection to terrorists.

Siraj Wahhaj, imam of a Brooklyn mosque, is among the backers of the ad campaign. Wahhaj was a character witness for convicted 1993 World Trade Center bombing mastermind Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman. He was also on a list of 170 potential unindicted co-conspirators for the bombing.

"I have no problem with the ad itself, but I have a very, very real problem with those behind it," King said to CNN.

Wahhaj, however, defended himself saying that he knew Abdel-Rahman as a “scholar in Islam” and “a great reciter of the Quran.”

"People try to make the connection as if I'm endorsing some bad deeds that [were] done by Sheik Abdel-Rahman," he said. "That had nothing to do with it."

The Islamic advertising campaign is scheduled to run for a month and costs about $48,000.

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


University Ordered to Recognize Christian Fraternity



Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post


By Nathan Black
Christian Post Reporter
Thu, Jul. 31 2008 09:01 AM EDT


The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ordered officials at the University of Florida to recognize a Christian fraternity, which had filed a lawsuit for discrimination.

Judges from the federal appeals court in Atlanta issued the injunction on Wednesday, ordering the school to officially acknowledge Beta Upsilon Chi (BYX), or Brothers Under Christ, a 23-year-old fraternity currently allowed on at least 20 other campuses nationwide.

"The 11th Circuit seems to understand that Christian student groups cannot be singled out for discrimination. The right to associate with people of like mind and interest applies to all student groups on a public university campus," said Litigation Counsel Timothy J. Tracey with Christian Legal Society's Center for Law & Religious Freedom, in a statement.

"We are confident that the court will not allow the University of Florida to continue to deprive BYX of this right by forcing the group to abandon its identity as a Christian men’s organization."

Christian Legal Society and Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed a discrimination lawsuit against school officials last year after the fraternity was denied official student organization status because university rules bar religious discrimination. Beta Upsilon Chi requires its members to be Christian men as its purpose is to establish "brotherhood and unity among college men based on the common bond of Jesus Christ."

Without official recognition, the fraternity cannot receive official benefits given to other groups, including access to meeting space and the ability to advertise and recruit members on campus, the lawsuit claims.

BYX appealed to the 11th Circuit when the district court denied a preliminary injunction to the fraternity. Meanwhile, a motion for summary judgment is still pending in federal district court.

In a similar case in December 2006, the University of Georgia agreed to recognize the Christian fraternity after a lawsuit was filed.

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


A Return to Enumerated Powers

The Founders of the United States saw the danger of unrestrained government and worked very hard to limit the power and scope of government.

For instance, they divided the authority and responsibility of different functions of government into three main areas: executive, legislative and judicial. They established the doctrine of separation of powers, which meant that these three branches of government would not only have different scopes of operation, but that they would overlap as little as possible. The founders also established a system of federalism in which the central or federal government would have specific powers, with everything else retained by the individual states.

Perhaps the key thread which wove together this tapestry of limited government was the doctrine of enumerated powers which is found in Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

The enumerated powers of the federal government are a list of things the federal government can do...and no more. In other words, by the Constitution, our federal government can only exercise powers which are explicitly granted to it by the Constitution--the governing document of our government.

For most of our history, these doctrines and constitutional limitations served us well. They kept the federal government small and in check, limiting the amount of control it could have over people and private enterprise, thus maintaining the greatest amount of freedom possible.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, however, had a vision of central authority for the United States government--and those enumerated powers of the Constitution stood in his way. But during his long tenure as president, during the Great Depression and World War II, he had the opportunity to appoint eight Supreme Court judges--judges who saw things FDR’s way, whether that was the Constitution's way or not.

The result was a massive expansion of federal power. Programs that had no constitutional authority (in fact, many were contrary to the limits of the Constitution) were passed through congress, signed into law by FDR, and when the constitutional challenges came, FDR's court thwarted them.

Since then, to greater and lesser degrees, many presidents promoted and pretty much every congress has passed the laws it saw fit, sometimes without any regard whatsoever to their constitutionality, and complicit judges have continued to hold a boot on the neck of the Constitution.

From the amount of legislation that comes out of congress today, it seems clear that most congressmen don't give the slightest thought as to whether a given bill fits within the enumerated powers.

This reckless doctrine of legislation by whim has produced a bloated government with a $3 trillion budget, an incomprehensible tax code, an impossible regulatory maze, and an egregious loss of economic and personal freedom.

If we are to remain a free people and retain a strong economy for much longer, this contemptuous attitude from Congress must stop.

Fortunately, there are some in Congress who understand their duty under the Constitution, and are working to uphold it.

According to the Heritage Foundation, Representative John Shadegg (R–AZ) has introduced and re-introduced the Enumerated Powers Act (HR 1359) since 1995. He was recently joined in sponsorship of this legislation by Senator Tom Coburn (R–OK) with S 3159.

The Enumerated Powers Act would require all legislation introduced in Congress to "contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority" empowering Congress to enact it.

Knowing some congressmen’s determination to bribe the voters with their own money, it is likely that many would find a way to get around the Enumerated Powers Act. But it would provide certain things which could mitigate the unconstitutional bills introduced and supported by many in congress.

First, it would provide the opportunity for an opponent to raise a point of order if constitutional muster was in question.

It would also resurrect the United States Constitution as a consideration in the legislative process, something that never enters the mind of too many congressmen today. Who knows—maybe actually thinking about the Constitution when considering hundreds of bills each year might actually cause the importance of our governing document to eventually sink in a little.

If they still chose to ignore or override constitutional considerations, this would provide “fodder”—as the Heritage piece calls it—for others to talk about constitutional authority, and perhaps to hold over the heads of elected officials who run roughshod over the Constitution.

Some will certainly try to use one of the most common current abuses of constitutional limitations—the Commerce Clause—but the Enumerated Powers Act could shed light on the process to expose this abuse.

The Founders were pretty clear, not only in the Constitution they created but in their personal writings and statements, that ours was to be a limited government.

One constitutional clause the Founders feared might be abused was the “General Welfare Clause.” But they made it plain that this clause was not to be used as a blank check to introduce what the Constitution otherwise contained no authority for.

For instance:

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated. - Thomas Jefferson

With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. – James Madison

Logically, the same caution and intent should apply to the Commerce Clause as applies to the General Welfare Clause.

As things stand right now, there is almost no constitutional light shed on the legislative process in Congress. The Enumerated Powers Act would shine a fresh light on the dirty deeds done in the dark, and would send some of the cockroaches scurrying for political cover. It would reduce the constitutional disdain of our congress, even if it didn’t stop it completely.

The Constitution is the governing document of our government, and it is the highest law of our land; all other laws are measured by it. It helps guard and defends the freedom of our society and us as individuals.

If we care about our freedom and the freedom of our posterity, we will consider it our duty to support Rep. Shadegg and Senator Coburn, and the Enumerated Powers Act.

If we fail to do so, we will have ourselves first to blame as we watch our freedom and prosperity exponentially wither away.


The Experiences of Women Who Have Had Abortions

Dakota Voice is reviewing the Report of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, in light of the upcoming November vote on Initiated Measure 11 to end most abortions in South Dakota.

Pertinent sections of the report will be reviewed each week for the next several weeks which may shed light on Initiated Measure 11.

First week: The Incorrect Assumptions of the Roe v. Wade Decision

Second Week: What Has Been Learned From the Practice of Abortion Since the Roe v. Wade

Last Week: The Current Practice of Abortion in South Dakota

The following is from Section II.A.5 on the findings of the report:
===================================

We received and reviewed the testimony of more than 1,940 women who have had abortions. This stunning and heart-wrenching testimony reveals that there are common experiences with abortions. Women were not told the truth about abortion, were misled into thinking that nothing but "tissue" was being removed, and relate that they would not have had an abortion if they were told the truth.

They relate that they were coerced into having the abortion by the father of the child or a parent, and that the abortion clinics also apply pressure to have the abortion. They almost uniformly express anger toward the abortion providers, their baby's father, or society in general, which promote abortion as a great right, the exercise of which is good for women. They almost invariably state that they were encouraged to have an abortion by the mere fact that it was legal.

They are stunned by their grief and the negative impact it has had on their lives. Many of these women are angered by grief at the loss of a child they were told never existed. One woman testified before the Task Force about three abortions she was misled into having, only to find that she was rendered infertile by the vacuum aspiration that damaged her fallopian tubes. She was distraught at having to explain to her new husband why they could never have children. Each of these women's stories is powerful.

The overwhelming majority of women testified that they would never have considered an abortion if it were not legal. Their testimony revealed that they feel that the legalization of abortion simply gave a license to others to pressure them into a decision they otherwise would not have made. Most of the women stated that abortion should not be legal.

Ms. Linda Schlueter, Vice President and Senior Staff Attorney of The Justice Foundation, testified that it is particularly significant that both of the plaintiffs in the landmark abortion cases, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, have sought to have the courts overturn the decisions because it is now so clear how abortion violates the rights, interests, and health of women. Norma McCorvey, Jane Roe in Roe v. Wade, believed that an abortion would help her, but she was never told about any physical, emotional, or psychological consequences. She actually never had an abortion herself, but her work in several abortion clinics caused her to see the truth. Sandra Cano, Doe in Doe v. Bolton, subsequently told the court that she never even wanted an abortion and her case was a fraud.

A year ago, Judge Edith Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, often mentioned as a candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court, wrote a published opinion in which she referred to the evidence provided by Ms. McCorvey in the Roe case, including the sworn affidavits submitted to this Task Force. Judge Jones stated that this evidence provided new and fresh information never before considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.

We find the testimonies of these women an important source of information about the way consents for abortions are taken, as well as many other matters relevant to the mandate given to this Task Force by HB 1233.


The 2005 South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion was created when the South Dakota legislature passed HB 1233 with a bipartisan majority in both houses. The purpose of the task force was "to study abortion and to provide for its composition, scope, and administration." The report was completed in December 2005 after several months of meetings.


Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Offenders Cheat 24/7 Program, But Deterrent Still Provided

Is South Dakota's 24/7 Sobriety Program to fight drunk driving getting the job done? KELO examines that question.

Drunk driving is an offense which can not only get the perpetrator hurt or killed, it can hurt or kill the innocent.

Alcohol is also a leading contributor to many other offenses including general assaults and domestic violence.

South Dakota has taken an aggressive approach to preventing repeat offenses with the 24/7 program which requires perpetrators of alcohol related offenses to come down to the police station twice a day to take a breathalyzer test.

But as one anonymous participate points out in the KELO article, the system isn't foolproof:

"I could get off work, I could go home, have a couple regular beers, wait a couple hours, go in there at 6 o'clock, and blow and I would be fine," George said. "Once I got done there, I could go home and have another three, four, five beers and the next morning I would be fine also."

George looked online to figure out just how much alcohol a person his size can dissipate over a period of time.

I've been out of law enforcement too long to remember clearly, but I seem to recall that lower concentrations of alcohol remain in the blood stream longer than they can be accurately detected by a breathalyzer. If so, a BAT might be in order for those who can't manage compliance by the breathalyzer.

Another possibility to strengthen enforcement might be to require testing three times a day (ever 8 hours), which would further reduce the amount of alcohol that could be consumed and still pass a breathalyzer test.

Yes, it would be more expensive, and yes, it would be more of a hassle. But if some offenders really can't stay off the booze, and if we're serious about reducing the alcohol problem our society has, it might be worth it.

Magistrate Judge John Hinrichs points out that the program is still having a positive effect:
Henrichs says if people have to calculate how much they can drink and still beat the system, then the 24/7 program is effective in cutting down on reckless drinking.

Both Henrichs and George agree it would be too difficult to force people on the program to take the breath test more than the current twice a day.

He has a good point. While it may not be keeping offenders off the substance that is causing them--and society--so many problems, it is almost certainly reducing the effects of the problem.

There's only so much alcohol you can take in and still be able to sober up in time for your next test. Perhaps this will mitigate if not eliminate repeat drunk driving offenses.


Senator Thune Votes Against Pork

In this day of tight energy resources and drilling obstruction from liberals in Washington, we need power from every source where it can be reasonably obtained.

With the huge amount of wind that rips through the plains states, wind power could be a boon for South Dakota.

The Argus Leader reports that despite Senator John Thune's support for wind power, he voted against a wind energy tax credit bill because it was full of pork:

The bill includes $1.2 billion for New York City to build a rail line to John F. Kennedy International Airport and a $1.6 billion tax benefit for trial lawyers.

Far too much legislation is loaded down like this with garbage that has nothing to do with the primary purpose of the bill. Sometimes it seems as if the only reason many in Washington advance a bill is to provide a vehicle for the pork they use to bribe the voters into re-electing them.

We need to return to simple bills that address a specific purpose, and refuse to allow them to be amended with irrelevant and wasteful spending. This casual disregard for fiscal responsibility and accountability to the taxpayers is what has brought us a $3 trillion budget and deficit spending.

Kudos to Senator Thune to drawing the line, even on a bill he would otherwise support.


Traditions are More than One or Two Democrat Administrations

ABC is one of the many outlets reporting on Barack Obama's egocentric, self-aggrandizing statement:

"I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions," Obama said, a witness told the Post.

Excuse me, but Bill Clinton's socialist leanings and Jimmy Carter's all-around economic and international incompetence do not constitute "traditions."

The "best traditions" of America are the ones upon which she was founded, and the ones which brought us to greatness.

They include freedom, limited government, self reliance, objective moral values, a Christian worldview, capitalism, federalism, and peace through strength.

They do NOT include Marxism, socialism, secularism, moral relativism, appeasement, big government, and dependence upon government.

Obama must be starting to believe all the messianic hype the "mainstream" media has been heaping on him.

Don't these liberals just crack you up, sometimes?


Democrats Want to Stop Successful Immigration Raids

The headline today from CNS News was "Democrats Want to Stop Immigration-Enforcement Raids."

The headline might as well have read "Democrats Want to Stop Enforcing the Law."

Immigration reform advocates, including Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, are calling for an end to Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids at businesses that knowingly hire large numbers of illegal aliens.

Meanwhile, a report published Tuesday by a Washington think tank shows that raids, along with other enforcement measures, are doing exactly what they are supposed to do: reducing the number of foreigners illegally working and residing in the United States.

So like liberals: find out what's working and put a stop to it.

The report from Dr. Stephen Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) says the illegal alien population in the U.S. has declined by 1 million in the last year.

That's good news--especially when liberals told us there was nothing we could do about the illegals already in the country.

The report indicates that the stepped-up immigration raids of the past year or so have had the effect of deterring additional border crossings, and "self deportation" of some who were already here and didn't want to get caught.

If we are to solve the problem of loose borders and millions of illegal aliens in our country, we need to work the issue from several levels.

First we must lock down the border so that it's harder than just walking across as they do now.

Then we must work on identifying, locating, and deporting the 12 million illegals in our country.

Will it be hard work? Yes. Will it take a long time? Yes. Will we get them all? Probably not.

But we'll get a lot more if we try than if we do nothing.

People who respect our laws and our American culture are welcome here. We don't need immigrants who break our laws. Let's make room for the law-abiding immigrants who want to come for a piece of the American life.

Our economy, our tax burden, and our national security demand that we make the effort.


Tim Johnson Controversy Indicates Democrat Lack of Confidence

It's looking like Senator Tim Johnson's campaign and his liberal friends in the "mainstream" media are going to milk his illness for all it's worth.

David Kranz' latest hit piece on the Joel Dykstra campaign in the Argus Leader today takes aim at Dykstra's website for a statement it makes: "South Dakota's Voice for the U.S. Senate."




Democrats seem to be making the most of the fact that Johnson's speech has been hindered by his brain hemorrhage and it is difficult for him to speak--and are trying to portray anything said or done by Republicans as a slur against Johnson's impairment.

The Kranz hit piece does point out (16 paragraphs into the story) in a quote from Kathleen Hall Jamieson with the The Annenberg School for Communication that

"The word 'voice' is used a lot in politics, a very standard political statement"


Of course the Democrat Party mouthpiece for the South Dakota blogosphere, Badlands Blue, is quick to fan the flames Kranz started.

The terminology of "voices" and "speaking" for the people one represents in politics is hardly a new concept. It's actually a natural analogy, because elected representatives do speak for the citizens in the legislative body. An elected representative is the voice of the people who cannot be there to meet with the legislative body. But this terminology does seem to be a new prop for those who are concerned over Senator Johnson's election chances.

How long will it be (later today?) until Dakota Voice is castigated for taking advantage of poor Senator Johnson's illness by calling itself "Dakota VOICE?"

Pat Powers at the South Dakota War College also points out that a recent Johnson campaign video is being recognized by the Rapid City Journal as a preemptive strike against concerns over his speech and other issues related to his brain hemorrhage.

But if Johnson can't or won't engage Dykstra in a debate this political season, which is still up in the air right now, the video may do little to calm those concerns.

Senator Johnson's progress after the brain hemorrhage which cost him much of his speech and mobility--and could have cost him his life--is commendable. I think most South Dakotans, regardless of politics or party affiliation, have been praying for him and are cheering for his recovery. On a personal level, he's come a long way.

But is it enough to meet the rigorous demands of representing the people of South Dakota in the United States Senate? This isn't an easy job, even for someone in the best of health. Being able to speak on the Senate floor for or against legislation, to do committee work, and to slave away for long hours when the Senate is in session are part of the job description.

These are valid concerns which the voters of South Dakota can and should consider during this election. Maybe Johnson is up to the demanding work of a United States senator, but for the campaign and other Democrat voices to be so hyper-sensitive about the issue doesn't speak well of their confidence.

Democrats have been so hysterical over Johnson's condition that they went ballistic last year when National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Ensign announced Republicans weren't going to wait any longer to start the campaign for Johnson's seat. Definitely overkill on the part of Democrats.

I said it then and I'll say it again. South Dakotans have been patient, gracious and hopeful with Senator Johnson's illness. But if Democrats expect the people of South Dakota to have confidence that Johnson is up to the job, they can't keep hiding behind a sick man as their primary campaign defense.


Freedom of Brotherly Love

American Minute from William J. Federer

He was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London eight months for being a Quaker, but later King Charles II gave him land in America as repayment of a large debt owed to his father.

He invited persecuted Christians of Europe to join his colony of religious toleration. Soon Quakers, Mennonites, Pietists, Amish, Anabaptists, Lutherans, Reformed, Moravians, Scotch-Irish Presbyterians, Dunkers (German Baptist), Brethren, Schwenckfelders, and French Huguenots joined his "holy experiment."

His name was William Penn, and he died JULY 30, 1718.

William Penn named his capital city Philadelphia, meaning "Brotherly Love."

In 1733, Philadelphia allowed the only English-speaking Catholic Church in the world at that time. Philadelphia's first synagogue was built in 1782.

Pennsylvania's Charter, granted March 4, 1681, stated: "Whereas our trusty and well beloved subject, William Penn, Esquire, son and heir of Sir William Penn, deceased, out of a commendable desire to enlarge our English Empire...and also to reduce the savage natives by gentle and just manners to the Love of Civil Societe and Christian religion, hath humbly besought leave of us to transport an ample colony unto...parts of America not yet cultivated and planted."

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.


Life Prizes: A Contest for the Soul of a Generation

GUEST COLUMN

BY CATHY RUSE
Executive Director of Life Prizes

Powerful forces in our culture fight for the attention of the next generation. Marketing firms spend billions trying to turn the heads of young consumers and keep their gaze. But the most profound contest for the soul of our youth is between those working to build a Culture of Life and those bent on tearing it down.

Last week the “pro-choice” organization Choice USA announced the winners of its “Generation Awards,” a prize given to young people under the age of 30 who have “made cutting edge contributions to the reproductive justice movement through service, research, communications and organizing.” One winner is a young woman just 24 years old who wrote a book entitled Hooking Up: A Girl’s All-out Guide to Sex and Sexuality, and whose website lists abortion advocacy organizations such as the National Abortion Federation and the Feminist Women’s Health Center as “pregnancy resources.”

Perhaps it is not surprising that the abortion lobby launched this award in 2003, the year in which a survey by Former Planned Parenthood Federation President Faye Wattleton’s Center for the Advancement of Women discovered what must have seemed to them a scandalous truth: that a majority of women today think abortion should either never be permitted or permitted only for rape, incest, or life endangerment. And that women believe “keeping abortion legal” should rank next-to-last in priority for the women’s movement, just ahead of “more girls in sports.”

That was also the time when the public was becoming aware of a new phenomenon in public opinion demographics: that young people now hold stronger pro-life views than in the past, and are even more pro-life than their own parents. Even the New York Times could not ignore the news, running a story with the headline, “Surprise, Mom, I’m Against Abortion” in March of 2003.

More recent polls continue to reveal this significant trend. A 2006 Hamilton College/Zogby International survey of 1,000 students nationwide showed that most high school seniors regard abortion as morally wrong and would significantly restrict it. Another long-term survey by Overbrook Research found an extreme shift in young people’s attitudes from strongly “pro-choice" in 1992 to strongly "pro-life" in 2006.

The abortion movement is mortally afraid of losing the next generation, and rightly so. Now it has a new cause for concern: Life Prizes, a new prize program to inspire young people to be bold and brilliant in saving lives.

Instituted by the Gerard Health Foundation, a private charity that funds not only pro-life causes but also those fighting to save the victims of HIV-AIDS, Life Prizes celebrates champions of the pro-life movement, individuals and organizations that have furthered the cause of life through public advocacy, scientific research, outreach programs, public disclosure activities, legal action and other achievements. Life Prizes will award up to $600,000 in prize money divided between as many as 6 award recipients, and the nomination process is underway.

Fascinating stories of charity and ingenuity are sure to emerge as Life Prizes’ nominators shed light on the great pro-life work being done around the country, including by college age youth who have already demonstrated by their commitment and actions the potential to be the pro-life leaders of tomorrow. To further solidify the pro-life inclinations of the younger generation, the awards will be presented next year in conjunction with the annual national conference of Students for Life of America, an event which last year drew 800 students from colleges and universities across the country.

Americans are widely known and lauded for our generosity and initiative. We celebrate advances in science, medicine, politics, and many other endeavors, granting awards to those who find new ways to promote and advance the betterment of society, the longevity of life, the end of disease. It is only fitting that, in the company of these great celebrations, there is a new award to honor advances in the greatest human rights battle of our day.

Abortionists beware! Now the unsung heroes working to save, defend, and protect human life have an award to call their own.

Cathy Ruse, a prominent lawyer in the pro-life movement who has held several high level positions promoting life causes, has accepted the position of Executive Director of Life Prizes.


 
Clicky Web Analytics