Supreme Court Gun Rights Decision: Three Important Points

The Supreme Court's gun rights decision is significant for these three reasons:

1)The framers' view of the right to own and carry arms is restored.
2)The decision is an example of judicial restraint.
3)The District of Columbia's complete ban on handguns was ruled unconstitutional.

Appeasement Never Works

How did you know this was about Barack Obama?

Actually it isn't...really. It's about appeasement in general, whether it be with appeasing bad behavior from your child, criminals, or belligerent countries..

From yesterday's "James Dobson Family Minute"...

Psychologists Dr. James Dobson and Dr. Bill Maier illustrate how pacifying aggressive behavior only reinforces it!

Click here to listen.

From OnePlace.com

CWA: Women's 'Right to Know' Law Upheld

From yesterday's mailbag:

New Holland, South Dakota - Concerned Women for America (CWA) of South Dakota applauds the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for upholding South Dakota's 2005 informed consent legislation (HB1166). "We are pleased that the court got it right," stated Linda Schauer, State Director of CWA of South Dakota. "The court wisely recognized that Planned Parenthood's argument that the Act violates a physician's First Amendment right was supported only by speculation and opinions, not facts.

"A woman seeking an abortion is often in a crisis situation or is under pressure from the child's father or her parents. She deserves to be fully informed with accurate and scientific information concerning a procedure that ends the life of her baby and is likely to have a detrimental effect on her for the rest of her life.

"The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, which upheld the ban on the gruesome partial birth abortion, gave credence to South Dakota's informed consent legislation," continued Schauer. The Supreme Court acknowledged the "special relationship that a mother has with her unborn child that ought to be respected in the eyes of the law." HB1166 requires that the woman seeking an abortion be told that she "has an existing relationship with that unborn human being and that relationship enjoys protection under the United States Constitution."

The Supreme Court affirmed informed consent statutes by saying the "state has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well-informed."

Women have been sold a pack of lies by abortion providers, who tell them that they were pregnant with a "blob of tissue." According to the deposition for HB1166, abortionists at Planned Parenthood in Sioux Falls use dehumanizing terms for the baby such as "remove the pregnancy" or "contents of the uterus." The staff fails to provide any information on fetal development unless requested by the woman. Furthermore, neither the state director nor the "patient educators" have any knowledge of fetal development.

Any responsible doctor would reveal all the known risk factors regarding a condition, procedure or drug. Why should we expect anything less for a procedure that ends the life of an unborn child and causes deep emotional trauma and many times causes physical risks to the mother?

Concerned Women for America is the nation's largest public policy women's organization.

On the South Dakota Abortion Informed Consent Decision

Some selected, salient excerpts from the Rapid City Journal on yesterday's appeals court decision clearing the way for enforcement of the 2005 abortion informed consent law.

"The bottom line is if the state Legislature orders a professional to tell the truth, that's not a violation of the First Amendment," Long said.

The 2005 law would make doctors tell women "that the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." Women also would have to be told they have a right to continue a pregnancy and that abortion may cause women psychological harm, including thoughts of suicide.

Planned Parenthood presented no evidence to oppose the common understanding that a fetus is a living organism while in the womb, the court majority said.

"The State's evidence suggests that the biological sense in which the embryo or fetus is whole, separate, unique and living should be clear in context to a physician," Judge Raymond W. Gruender wrote for the majority.

That really gets to the heart of the matter, doesn't it? The unborn child has, from conception, DNA which is completely unique from that of its mother or father. And that DNA is human. The child also usually has a heartbeat and brain activity by the time many women find out they're pregnant.

It's a separate human being. And the woman only has say-so over the life of her own body, not that of another human being.

Have We Forgotten That Powerful Friend?

American Minute from William J. Federer

The Constitutional Convention was in a deadlock over how large and small states could be represented equally. Some delegates gave up and left. Then, on JUNE 28, 1787, 81-year-old Benjamin Franklin spoke and shortly after, the U.S. Constitution became a reality.

As recorded by James Madison, Franklin stated: "Groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights."

Franklin continued: "In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending Providence in our favor...And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?"

Franklin concluded: "We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that 'except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.'...I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed...no better than the Builders of Babel."

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.

McCain Supports California Marriage Amendment

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Nathan Black
Christian Post Reporter
Fri, Jun. 27 2008 03:38 PM EDT

Sen. John McCain endorsed on Thursday a ballot initiative in California that would overturn the recent state court ruling legalizing same-sex "marriage."

"I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions," the Republican presidential candidate said in a statement, according to ProtectMarriage.com.

McCain's support for traditional marriage was welcomed by conservatives and pro-family groups especially at a time when many of them remain unsure of the Arizona senator and his stance on social issues.

But McCain is slowly winning the hearts of evangelicals and conservative leaders as polls show him head-to-head with presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

On Thursday, McCain met privately with several conservative leaders in Ohio to talk about social issues, including embryonic stem-cell research, judges and gay "marriage." Although McCain wasn't their first choice for the Republican nomination, some are rallying behind him against Obama.

Participants of the private meeting said the Arizona senator indicated he would take seriously their requests that he choose an anti-abortion running mate and would talk more openly about his stance supporting traditional marriage, according to The Los Angeles Times.

After that meeting, a lot of hearts were changed, Phil Burress, who led Ohio's anti-gay-marriage ballot measure in 2004, the Times reported. "We realized that he's with us on the majority of the issues we care about."

Although McCain has opposed a federal constitutional amendment preserving traditional marriage, saying he believes states should decide the issue, McCain's announcement supporting the California Protection of Marriage initiative would indicate to many evangelicals that he's on their side when it comes to the core social issues.

"As a leader in the United States Senate and the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Senator McCain's position will be an important factor to millions of Californians," ProtectMarriage.com chairman Ron Prentice commented. "We are honored to have the support of Senator McCain."

Although Prentice also invited Obama to endorse the ballot initiative, his wife, Michelle, delivered a speech Thursday indicating that he would most likely not hop on the traditional marriage bandwagon.

Obama will fight for equal rights for gays just as he fought to help working-class families overcome poverty, she said at a Manhattan fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee's Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council, according to The Associated Press.

McCain is continuing his more aggressive push to reach out to his party base as he is scheduled to meet with the Rev. Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham, on Sunday. He said he also hopes to meet with influential evangelical Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family.

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

Study: Christianity Makes Better Men

Christians don't live a perfect life. They don't always do the right thing; sometimes they do some pretty bad things.

But if a person is a genuine, dedicated Christian, they are probably trying to leave their old nature behind, the one they were born with that was strongly disposed to do the wrong thing. The sincere Christian is probably praying regularly, reading the Bible regularly, and attending church regularly. And he/she is probably trying to consistently apply the principles they're learning in those pursuits to their daily lives.

That should be making a difference in the way they live, right? According to a new study by Bradford Wilcox, a sociology professor at the University of Virginia, it does.

LifeSiteNews reports Wilcox found that 70% of husbands who attend church regularly say they are "very happy" in their marriages, compared to 59% who rarely if ever attend church.

The article also said that married couples who regularly attend Christian church services are 35% less likely to divorce.

Also reported was that fathers who regularly attend church spend an average of two more hours a week in activities with their children, and spent more one-on-one time with their children, and were 65% more likely to hug and praise their children. Also found was that children born within marriage had better relationships with their fathers.

From the article:

Wilcox concluded his research brief by strongly advocating the positive effects that religion has on husbands and fathers: "This brief provides an array of evidence indicating that religion is an answer to the male problematic-that is, the tendency of fathers to become detached, emotionally or physically, from their children and the mothers of their children. I find that fathers who are religious, and who have partners who are religious, are-on average-more likely to be happily married, to be engaged and affectionate parents, and to get and stay married to the mothers of their children."

The study also points out:

- children living in father-absent homes rose from 11% in 1960 to 27% in 2000; that's nearly one in three

- 60% of children in fatherless families saw their fathers once a month or less

- children born to a cohabiting couple had a 50% risk of parental breakup within the first five years of their life (children born in marriage only face a 15% risk)

You can find the study here.

As Benjamin Franklin, one of the least religious of the Founders, said, "If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?"

With the high divorce rate, crime rate, and fatherless rate, I think we're finding out.

Let's turn it around, guys.

Planned Parenthood and the 'marketing of meaninglessness'

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

The message of my last book, "White Ghetto", is that the social chaos in inner city black communities is symptomatic of the cultural pathology gripping the nation as a whole.

Inner city black American life is a leading indicator of American culture and a product of the ascendance of materialism and relativism. Blacks have been first because they have been the most exposed and vulnerable.

When 20 percent of black babies were born to unwed mothers in the 1960s, this was sufficiently outside the national norm to be perceived as a uniquely black problem. But today, as the black rate has soared to 70 percent, the incidence of white out-of-wedlock births, now almost 1-in-3 three, exceeds the black incidence of 40 years ago.

The symptoms of social and cultural unraveling -- family breakdown, promiscuity, teen pregnancy, abortion -- are today increasingly manifested in white as well as black America.

Now, according to a lengthy profile in the Wall Street Journal, America's pre-eminent marketer of the culture of meaninglessness, Planned Parenthood, plans to help expedite this process and is retooling to go beyond targeting poor blacks to reach out to all Americans.

The article, "Extending the brand: Planned Parenthood Hits Suburbia," discusses how the organization is mobilizing its now-considerable resources -- a $1 billion dollar budget, with a reported $100 million-plus surplus -- to build glitzy new multimillion-dollar centers and express outlets in malls -- to reach women of means and everyone else.

Soon your daughter, too, can learn that the point of her life is her own pleasure and that other human beings, in or outside of the womb, are mere tools to be used toward that end. And, according to the organization's president, Cecile Richards, they want to reach young men as well as women.

What, after all, is our national specialty if not marketing? So, as Starbucks is to coffee, as Wal-Mart is to volume sales, so Planned Parenthood is to nihilism.

Until now, Planned Parenthood clinics have been strategically located in proximity to black neighborhoods and schools. But blacks only constitute 12 percent of the country. It makes all the business sense in the world for Planned Parenthood to move into the rapidly growing new Latino community and into mainstream white America.

Marketing itself under the happy face of providing "reproductive health" services, Planned Parenthood provides 1-of-5 abortions done in the country. Although the overall number of abortions performed each year has dropped, the percent done by Planned Parenthood has increased, translating in absolute numbers to almost 300,000 annually.

About one-third of abortions are black babies.

Let's be clear that the main goal of these abortion services is not to save lives of women whose life is in danger as result of their pregnancy. The objective is birth and population control.

In this sense, the organization has been true to the vision of its founder -- socialist, eugenicist, and racist, Margaret Sanger.

Sanger created the "Negro Project" in 1939 whose aim was to put a lid on the growth rate of the black population. She was an advocate of the use of sterilization as well as abortion to eliminate the "unfit."

Recent news about the teen pregnancy epidemic in Gloucester, Mass., has caused shock. More shocking was learning that the pregnancies were intentional. I'll add that further shock resulted from the girls being white.

A black teenager intentionally getting pregnant is not news.

Meaninglessness may be transmitted to brains but it does not get transmitted to bodies. As young black women, in the face of despair, have asserted life through pregnancy, we now see this happening with young white women.

Planned Parenthood gets one-third of its budget, over $300 million, from the federal government -- from U.S. taxpayers. This is the size of the budget of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Sixty thousand black children in failing inner city public schools, kids largely from broken families, could get $5,000 scholarships each to go to a private school, a religious school, and learn values that could give them a chance for a successful life.

Let's get out of the business of marketing meaninglessness and death. At least, let's stop forcing U.S. taxpayers to subsidize it.

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.

Senate Candidate Dykstra Accepts Debate Invitation

Mark your calendars for October 14.

From today's mailbag:

Sioux Falls, SD - Republican Senate Candidate Joel Dykstra has accepted the invitation to participate in a statewide debate on October 14, 2008, featuring the ballot candidates for the office of United States Senator. The debate will be held in Vermillion and broadcasted live on South Dakota Public Television at 8:00 p.m. CDT. It will also be tape delayed on South Dakota Public Radio.

The debate is being hosted by South Dakota Public Broadcasting, AARP of South Dakota, and the South Dakota Newspaper Association.

Dykstra welcomed the chance to engage Senator Tim Johnson in a frank and open exchange about the key issues facing South Dakota voters in this year's election. "The debate offers an important opportunity for me to articulate my positions and demonstrate the choice that South Dakota voters have when selecting their next U.S. Senator. I will continue to offer my positive message for the future and specific actions needed to change the status quo and "do-nothing" culture in Washington," he stated.

Dykstra said he is looking forward to an issue-oriented discussion as South Dakotans are eager to hear about solutions to the current energy crisis, ideas for stabilizing the economy and how lawmakers can address the high cost of health insurance and access to health care. "These issues have been developing for many years, but have not been addressed by the incumbents in Washington. It's time for someone to step up and actually deliver solutions for each of these policy areas," he said.

McCain on Jimmy Carter

This is one of the best things I've ever heard come out of John McCain's mouth.

From The Politico:

"Carter was a lousy president," McCain observed to Ralston. "This is the same guy who kissed Brezhnev."

Spain Takes Next Evolutionary Step: Rights for Apes

If, as evolutionists claim, humans are simply highly evolved animals, then there's really no significant distinction between animals and humans, other than the intelligence.

All that immortal soul, created in the image of God stuff really doesn't matter.

So if we consider human rights an important thing (strictly from a humanist perspective, mind you), then why should not the animals enjoy the same protections?

From LifeSiteNews:

A Spanish parliamentary committee yesterday gave its support to a resolution that would grant so-called "great apes" the rights to life, liberty and freedom from torture.

Spain is also banning apes in circuses, using them in TV commercials or other films.

I can see the "torture" part; even animals shouldn't be subjected to pain just so someone can get their sadistic jollies.

But the rest...this utter nonsense is where you logically end up when you abandon a Judeo-Christain value system.

And I'm not the only one who thinks so. Apparently Peter Singer, noted ultra-radical "bio ethicist" realizes this kind of lunacy doesn't fit within the Christian worldview.

From NewsMax:

Australian-born Singer, dubbed the “godfather” of animal rights, has stirred up controversy by asserting, among other things, that Christianity is a “problem” for the animal rights movement.

It IS a problem, because the Bible says God created the entire universe and everything in it, pretty much as we see it today.

The Bible says God created all life on earth within six days, and created that life to reproduce after it's own kind, not morph into other organisms.

And the Bible says that God created human beings different than any other life on earth. He created humans in his own image, with a conscience, an eternal soul, and the ability to choose right from wrong.

The Bible also put all of creation, including the animals, under the dominion of humans. We are not to indiscriminately, cruelly or wastefully destroy animal life, but it is under human dominion; animal life isn't sacred and isn't on the same level as human life.

So yes, Singer is right: the Christian worldview is a "problem" for the animal rights movement. With good reason.

Obama Hires 'Religious Affairs' Adviser

What, so he can work on fooling Bible-believing Christians into thinking Obama represents their interests?

From the Washington Post:

The Obama campaign plans a strong push to attract religious voters -- with small group "faith forums" held around the country, regular meetings with clergy of various faiths, frequent appearances in religious media and a faith outreach staff of a half-dozen that may grow as the general election nears

Can you say "Pandering"? I knew you could.

He'd better hope his God-hating secularist supporters don't find out about this. But then, I think most liberals know that most other liberals aren't sincere about the pandering, er, promises they make on the campaign trail. ;-)

Black Pro-Lifers Say Planned Parenthood 'Racist'

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Alexander J. Sheffrin
Christian Post Reporter
Fri, Jun. 27 2008 02:12 PM EDT

Dozens of black pastors and pro-life advocates converged on Capitol Hill Thursday to protest outside the Democratic and Republican National Headquarters because of what they claimed was a silence on “racist” abortion providers like Planned Parenthood.

Abortion, they said, has hit black communities hard. Eighty percent of Planned Parenthood facilities are in minority neighborhoods, and nearly 40 percent of all black babies are aborted every year, according to surveys – a statistic that black pro-lifers say is no accident.

Earlier this year, the pro-choice organization was rocked with scandal after videos released by a pro-life student group at UCLA alleged that the abortion provider had accepted donations solely for the purpose of aborting black babies.

"It's an anti-civil rights act to support Planned Parenthood," said Alveda King, niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., while noting the huge abortion rates that were destroying African American communities, in a statement.

“[Martin Luther King, Jr.] was a non-violent man that could not have sanctioned the murders of all the children,” she added, according to The Hill’s Blog.

King, who herself has had two abortions, was among those who chided both Republican and Democratic lawmakers for doing to little to combat the pro-choice organization.

Last year alone, the demonstrators noted, the group had received over $300 million in federal funding and recorded over $1 billion in profits , and gave $10 million to pro-choice political candidates.

“Political donations from Planned Parenthood are racist at their very core,” said Day Gardner, president of the National Black Pro-Life Union, according to The Hill’s Blog.

“We are urging candidates to stand up for civil rights for all Americans by turning the blood money down,” she added. According to The Advocate, the UCLA group that released the allegedly racist Planned Parenthood video recordings in March, the effect of abortion on African Americans has been nothing short of “genocide.”

Fourteen million African American babies have been aborted since 1973, constituting the largest source of African American deaths, exceeding that of terrorism, cancer, AIDS, and heart disease combined, the group says.

Last year, Planned Parenthood facilities performed 289,570 abortions at its over 800 locations – the highest number of abortions on record.

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

More Missile Defense Success - Does Obama Know?

Thanks to the vision of President Ronald Reagan, we not only brought down the Soviet Union and removed the threat of massive nuclear attack, we also now have a strategic missile defense system which only came online within the last year or so.

Despite having been mothballed by President Bill Clinton, President George W. Bush resurrected the program. While it's not fully complete, it has been tested and is now operational. The system was even used earlier this year to strike a falling satellite that could have been harmful if it impacted on earth.

Now there is a fresh success in the ongoing testing and improvement of this system.

From the World Tribune:

A U.S. missile defense system sought by several Middle East countries has intercepted a missile with a separating warhead.

In the first such achievement, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, shot down a target warhead that separated from the booster missile.

This is the kind of missile defense Barack Obama has pledged to cut spending on, calling them "unproven" missile defense systems.

Newsflash, Senator Obama: we already have a missile defense system online! It's already proven itself.

Not only does Obama not know we already have a proven missile defense system, he wants to slash what he thinks we do have.

This man simply cannot be trusted as Commander-in-Chief of this nation.

NewsBusted Conservative Comedy 6/27/2008

--Barack Obama releases his first TV ads

--CNN's Roland Martin comments on "weak" conservative men

--Police in Cape Cod Massachusetts crack down on public sex acts

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

If you like the show, be sure to subscribe!

Fatherhood Begins at Conception

Well, "Duh," you say! You'd be right!

My friend and fellow blogger Pastor Steve Hickey at Voices Carry points out an inconsistency from Barack Obama (again, you'd probably say, "Duh") on fatherhood, life, and abortion.

Barack Obama spoke on Father's Day at the Apostolic Church of God in Chicago where he said

"We need fathers to recognize that responsibility doesn't just end at conception."

Well, if life doesn't begin at conception, why is there any paternal responsibility at all at conception. Apparently that must only come when the child is successfully born alive. This should leave the father free to watch football until the child is successfully born alive; the mother could give him a call from the hospital to let him know he now has responsibilities.

But if the responsibility of fatherhood does in fact begin at conception, and according to Obama that responsibility doesn't end at conception, then what is the father responsible for?

Is he responsible for a zytoblast in the mother's body? Why would a man be responsible for a nonspecific zytoblast in the mother's body?

Is he responsible for a cytoblast in the mother's body? Why would a man be responsible for a nonspecific cytoblast in the mother's body?

Is he responsible for a zygote in the mother's body? Why would a man be responsible for a nonspecific zygote in the mother's body?

Is he responsible for a blob of tissue in the mother's body? Why would he be responsible for a blob of tissue?

Is he responsible for an organ or another part of the mother's body? Why would he be responsible for an organ or another part of the mother's body?

Is he responsible for a child that he helped place in the mother's body? Would it be appropriate for a father to be responsible for a child he helped place in the mother's body? If so, why would we kill a child in the mother's body?

Is he responsible for another human being with DNA unique from his own or the mothers, that he helped place in the mother's body? Would it be appropriate for a father to be responsible for another human being with DNA unique from his own or the mothers, that he helped place in the mother's body? If so, why would we kill another unique human being with DNA unique from the fathers or the mothers in the mother's body?

If Barack Obama really believes a father's responsibilities don't end at conception, what is the father responsible for and to? And if the father is responsible to a child, another human being, why does Barack Obama believe it is okay to kill that child simply because the mother wants to?

AIDS On the Increase in Homosexual Community

AIDS is on the increase in the homosexual community, but are you likely to hear about it from most of the "mainstream" media?

From Reuters yesterday:

Between 2001 and 2006, male-to-male sex was the largest HIV transmission category in the US, and the only one associated with an increasing number of HIV/AIDS diagnoses, according to a report from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The increase was highest among boys and men between the ages of 13 and 24 years who had sex with other males, particularly among ethnic minorities.

SOURCE: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, June 27, 2008.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that 72% of male AIDS cases spring from homosexual activity.

The risk of homosexual activity in the contraction of AIDS has become so difficult to ignore that even Matt Foreman, the former Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, admitted a few months ago that AIDS is primarily a "gay disease":

"Internally, when these numbers come out, the 'established' gay community seems to have a collective shrug as if this isn't our problem. Folks, with 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi, we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that."

There are certainly other valid reasons for not engaging in homosexual behavior, Biblical prohibitions and other health risks among them, but if there was any intellectual honesty in the greater homosexual community, that community would be radically shrinking out of self-interest, if nothing else.

There has to be a spiritual component at work, a "strong delusion" that prevents some from seeing the truth, even from a secular perspective.

Which is why it's all the more irresponsible when well-meaning (or uncaring?) politically correct individuals deliberately avoid the truth, glossing over it in an attempt to look like a nice guy. They're like the doctor who examines the smoking patient, finds cancer, then tells the patient, "You're in perfect health! Keep doing what you're doing!"

We're not doing homosexuals a favor by telling them there's nothing immoral or unhealthy about their behavior. In doing that, we're negligently contributing to their physical, emotional and spiritual disaster.

There's a reason the Bible says, "Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses."

South Dakota Informed Consent Injunction Lifted

A victory for pro-lifers today as word comes from KOTA that the 8th U.S. Court of Appeals has overturned a lower court decision to

block enforcement of a South Dakota law that would require doctors to tell women seeking abortions that the procedure ends a human life.

The case now goes back to U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier in Rapid City for further hearing.

The law was actually passed in 2005 and required abortionists to inform women seeking an abortion that "abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."

Planned Parenthood argues that the law, intended to provide more medical information to women seeking abortions, violates the free speech rights of abortionists by forcing them to tell patients about this.

Today's decision in Planned Parenthood v. Rounds can be read here.

The decision lifts the injunction from enforcement of the law:

We conclude that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction based on Planned Parenthood’s claim that the Act violates physicians’ First Amendment rights. Accordingly, we vacate the preliminary injunction and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) allied attorney Harold Cassidy represented state crisis pregnancy centers in filing a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the law.

In a press release from the ADF today, ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence said, “A woman’s life is worth more than Planned Parenthood’s bottom line. Anyone truly concerned about the interests of women supports making sure they have access to all the information necessary to make a fully informed decision. Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, has argued adamantly to restrict the information women have about the lives of their pre-born babies. We’re pleased the court’s decision today will make sure women have access to the information they need and deserve.”

Stacy Wollman, executive director for Black Hills Crisis Pregnancy Center, was pleased with the decision. "Women deserve to be told the truth. The South Dakota legislature recognized this fact three years ago, and today, so did the court. It is a great day for women throughout South Dakota, including the women we see in Rapid City."

Kimberly Martinez of the Alpha Center in Sioux Falls said, "Thanks to today's decision by the court, women are now going to be given the truth by abortion providers, who have been fighting to avoid doing so for years."

Medical authorities are already required to tell patients all sorts of things for all sorts of procedures; why is this any different? Could it be because the woman might come face to face with the reality that she is considering ending the life of her child?

In almost every medical case, more information is seen as positive. Why would more information about the ramifications of a woman's abortion be a bad thing? Could it be that she might realize she'd be ending the life of her unborn child--an irrevocable act--and that would mean less abortion revenue for Planned Parenthood?

What an upside-down world we live in where some medical authorities promote ignorance over information, and some judges help them promote ignorance.

Fortunately common sense has carried the day over political agenda this time. We'll see if it continues as this case goes back to court in Rapid City.

Canadian Healthcare "In Ruins"

I have and others at Dakota Voice have written in previous posts of our concerns about a single-payer health care system such as that of our northern neighbors. I have written about how costs can be contained only by rationing services. No amount of taxation or other revenue sources can ever keep up with the demand for “free” healthcare. When a desirable commodity is believed to be free, supply can never meet demand. Besides the Canadian system another good model of this phenomenon would be the Veterans Administration hospitals that control costs by rationing and making services contingent upon navigating a maze of regulations and prerequisites and ultimately denying services except for the most basic low-cost variety.

Investor’s Business Daily has an editorial about Claude Castonguay that should give Americans reason to pause in our headlong rush to government run healthcare. Castonguay is called “the father of Quebec medicare,” because it was he who first proposed and engineered Quebec health care back in the 60s, later expanding to all of Canada. Mr. Castonguay has now written that the Canadian health care system is "in crisis" and is advocating a return to some form of private healthcare and private insurance as the only way to maintain high-quality care for Canadians.

Back in the 1960s, Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.

The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: 'the father of Quebec medicare.' Even this title seems modest; Castonguay's work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast.

Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in 'crisis.'
'We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it,' says Castonguay.

But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: 'We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice.'

I hope Americans are paying attention. We may get what Obama and Hillary have been promising and we may find ourselves having to go to Canada in the future for timely, state-of –the-art medical care.

Overcoming Handicaps

American Minute from William J. Federer

Helen Keller was born JUNE 27, 1880. At the age of two she suffered an illness that left her blind and deaf. Her parents took her to Dr. Alexander Graham Bell who recommended the Perkins Institute for the Blind in Boston. There, at age of 7, Helen was tutored by Anne Sullivan through the sense of touch.

Eventually Helen Keller learned to read Braille and began attending Radcliffe College, where Anne Sullivan interpreted lectures.

Helen became concerned about all the blind, especially those blinded in war or by poor working conditions. She received numerous international honors for her efforts.

Helen Keller learned to type on a Braille typewriter and wrote many books between 1903 and 1941, including: The Story of My Life, Optimism, The World I Live In, The Song of the Stone Wall, Out of the Dark, My Religion, Midstream, Let Us Have Faith, and The Open Door.

Helen Keller stated: "The Bible is one mighty representative of the whole spiritual life of humanity."

Helen Keller wrote: "I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, I have found myself, my work, and my God."

Helen Keller concluded: "Four things to learn in life: To think clearly without hurry...To love everybody sincerely...To act in everything with the highest motives...To trust God unhesitatingly."

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.

Three Concerns About the Rapid Expansion of Federal Criminal

The rapid expansion of federal criminal law leads to these three concerns:

1)It's easy to unknowingly violate federal criminal law.
2)Few federal defendants ever get their day in court.
3)Over-federalizing crime makes us less safe.

Democrat Pledges to 'Rip Apart' Child Molestation Victims

Here's some good ole family values from Rep. James Fagan of Massachusetts, a lawyer and elected representative--someone who should epitomize lawfulness and protection of innocent citizens.

From WorldNetDaily, Democrat Rep. Fagan (as he upholds the highest in family values) says no stoop is too low for him to get his child-molesting dirtbag client off the hook:

"I'm gonna rip them apart," Fagan said of child victims. "I'm going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined, that when they're 8 years old, they throw up; when they're 12 years old, they won't sleep; when they're 19 years old, they'll have nightmares and they'll never have a relationship with anybody."

As a defense attorney, Fagan said he would prevent accused child sex offenders from experiencing a "mandatory sentence of those draconian proportions."

So truth isn't important. The fact that his client may very well be guilty (and he may very well know it) doesn't matter. His obligation to his client overrides, truth, decency and morality. Get the dirtbag off, no matter if you have to terrorize an innocent child to do it.

I know not all lawyers are like this (I have some lawyer friends) but Fagan's kind is part of why lawyers have such a bad name.

How can someone with such a warped sense of right and wrong even sleep at night? It has to be a seared conscience.

Arctic Volcanos Belching Greenhouse Gasses

Our SUV's are belching out too much greenhouse gas and causing global warming, right? Maybe not.

From Canada.com comes the story of an international team that looked at the ocean floor in the Arctic.

They found huge fountains of gas and molten lava exploding from the ocean floor.

The scientists say the heat released by the explosions is not contributing to the melting of the Arctic ice, but Sohn says the huge volumes of CO2 gas that belched out of the undersea volcanoes likely contributed to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. How much, he couldn't say.

I find it hard to believe that all this geothermal activity wouldn't be melting the Arctic ice...while our Ford Expeditions are. He does at least say that the CO2 this volcanic activity is emitting is "contributing" to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Man, getting these politically correct "scientists" to admit that anything natural could be affecting climate is like pulling teeth, isn't it?

The Arctic seabed is as explosive geologically as it is politically judging by the "fountains" of gas and molten lava that have been blasting out of underwater volcanoes near the North Pole.

Yes, neither this volcanic activity under the North Pole, nor the huge star in the middle of our solar system could possibly cause temperature changes on the earth.

And they say Christians aren't rational...

Take Just One Minute

Study Says Evangelicals Less Known than Homosexuals

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Audrey Barrick
Christian Post Reporter
Thu, Jun. 26 2008 04:50 PM EDT

More Americans are acquainted with a gay or lesbian person than an evangelical, according to a recent study.

The latest research by Phoenix-based Ellison Research found that only 24 percent of all Americans who say they are not evangelical know an evangelical person very well and 40 percent have never known any evangelicals at all, even casually. Meanwhile, 53 percent say they know a homosexual person very well and 20 percent know such a person casually.

"The study raises questions about why members of some groups are largely invisible to so many Americans," Ron Sellers, president of Ellison Research, noted.

Sellers pointed out that homosexuals are estimated to make up less than 10 percent of the U.S. population while 17 percent of Americans call themselves evangelical. Despite the larger evangelical count, Americans are more likely to know a gay or lesbian person than an evangelical.

Also, the study showed that a majority of evangelicals (62 percent), along with 75 percent of Protestant churchgoers and 77 percent of all Catholics, know a gay or lesbian person at least casually.

"Is this because homosexuals are more open than evangelicals about who they are? Because Americans are more open to knowing a homosexual than an evangelical? Because evangelicals themselves are less likely to reach into the broader community to form relationships?" he posed. "These questions are certainly open to debate."

The questions Sellers posed can also be applied to other groups, he noted. "You could just as easily ask these questions about Mormons versus evangelicals, where Americans are just as likely to know a Mormon as an evangelical, even though by any measure the evangelical population in the U.S. is dramatically larger than the Mormon population."

According to the study, 21 percent know a Mormon very well.

Statistics were more positive for born-again Christians, but only to a small extent. Among Americans who do not call themselves born again, 38 percent say they know a born-again Christian very well and 18 percent have never known one.

Among other findings, half of all Americans know a member of the Christian clergy very well, 20 percent know one casually, and 12 percent have never known a clergyperson. More interestingly, the study pointed out that among people who regularly attend worship services, 30 percent say they do not currently know any clergy members very well and 14 percent say they do not even know one, including their own minister or priest, casually.

Younger Americans are less likely to know a Christian clergyperson. Only 39 percent of people under 35 know a Christian clergyperson very well compared to 48 percent of people 35 to 54 years old and 61 percent of those 55 or older.

Even fewer Catholic churchgoers report knowing any clergy with 23 percent saying they do not know one even casually, according to the study.

Although Catholics may not know their own priest, many Americans are acquainted with Catholics. With Catholics representing a large segment of the U.S. population, 76 percent of all non-Catholics say they currently know a Roman Catholic very well. Only 3 percent have never known a Catholic.

In other findings, people who regularly attend worship services are as likely to know people across religious or irreligious lines – atheists, Muslims, Mormons, and Jews – as those who are not active in a church or the unchurched.

The Ellison study also measured Americans' acquaintances with other types of people, including those of another ethnic background and persons in a different political party.

Among non-white Americans, 92 percent currently know a white person very well. Among non-blacks, 68 percent know a black person very well. And among non-Latinos, 72 percent know a Latino individual very well. Only 44 percent know an Asian person very well and the numbers are similar for American Indians and for Jews.

The study additionally showed that many Americans are not acquainted with those on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Less than half (47 percent) of Americans who are not politically conservative say they know someone who is, and 24 percent have never known a conservative. Also, only 42 percent of adults who do not call themselves politically liberal know a liberal person and 25 percent have never known one.

Further looking into the relationships of conservatives and liberals, Sellers found the similarities more striking than the differences.

"Yes, conservatives are more likely to know a born again Christian, but two-thirds of liberals also know one at least casually," he said. "And yes, liberals are more likely to know a gay or lesbian person, but two-thirds of conservatives also know one at least casually. Liberals and conservatives may have very different worldviews, but the relationships they maintain aren’t really all that different, despite the stereotypes.”

Findings from the study, which was conducted on 1,007 adults, can be interpreted either positively or negatively, Sellers commented.

"On the positive side, the study shows the vast majority of Americans know someone of a different racial or ethnic background very well, and many also know people of different religious or political viewpoints," he stated.

"On the negative side, there are plenty of types of people many Americans have really never encountered. Four out of ten have never known – even casually – someone who has experienced homelessness. A third have never known an evangelical or a Mormon. Almost half have never known a Muslim. One out of five has never known an American Indian. One out of every four liberals has never known a conservative, and vice versa. Not knowing a variety of people has implications for how we live our lives and how we think of others."

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

Indoctrination at Zero to Five

Socialists have been after our children at younger and younger ages for years. One of the latest efforts to get children out of the home and into the hands of state social engineers is the universal preschool or pre-k effort which has really ramped up in the past few years.

Even in relatively conservative South Dakota, we've seen universal pre-k bills coming up in the legislature the last two years. For the most part, they've been shot down, but only after a lot of effort on the part of pro-family groups. But they're certain to keep coming back.

Presidential candidate Barack Obama is looking to kick this effort into high gear at the national level if he becomes president.

From Terence P. Jeffrey's column at CNS News yesterday:

"The first part of my plan focuses on providing quality affordable early childhood education to every child in America," Obama said in a November speech. "As president, I will launch a Children's First Agenda that provides care, learning and support to families with children ages zero to five."

"We'll create Early Learning Grants to help states create a system of high-quality early care and education for all young children and their families," he said. "And we'll help more working parents find a safe, affordable place to leave their children during the day by improving the educational quality of our childcare programs and increasing the childcare tax credit."

This week, Obama upped his ante by vowing to "double funding for after-school programs that help children learn and give parents relief."

Why are social engineers like Obama even able to so enticingly dangle such a carrot in front of us in the first place? Why isn't such a radically unconstitutional and anti-family proposal not rejected outright for what it is?

According to the family data in Jeffrey's column, it has to do with changes in the family and in the home. And although you might not have stopped to think about it, it's likely not a big surprise.

"In 1948, only about 17 percent of married mothers were in the labor force," wrote Cohany and Sok. "By 1995, their labor force participation rate had reached 70 percent."

Note that these are "married mothers" -- not single moms, who because of illegitimacy, divorce or a husband's death are forced to work outside the home.

In fact, as of 2005 (the latest year cited by Cohany and Sok), more than 53 percent of married American women with infants (babies less than 1 year old) worked outside the home.

That 1948 figure may even be bigger than it was through most of American history, since we had just come out of the World War II period when women first entered the workforce in huge numbers while many men were away fighting the war.

Many protest that families "have to" have both mother and father working outside the home in order to survive (my family hasn't, and neither did my parent's family). But Jeffrey's piece says the data shows that families where the husband's income is in the bottom 20% are the least likely for the mother to work outside the home.

There is simply no better place for growing children than in the home. No one will love the child like the parents do. No one will protect the child like the parents will. No one will pass along your values to your child as well as you will.

The state, on the other hand, at best do a less effectual job of all these important tasks. At worst, the state may directly or indirectly teach your children values and principles completely at odds with your own, as well as closely expose your child to other children who may have little moral or behavior training at home.

And if you are a Christian parent, the state will without a doubt (it's already done in the public school system) teach your child that their faith is something to be ashamed of, something that should be kept within the four walls of a church, something that is not relevant to the "real world," and certainly cannot be talked about in the public square.

This kind of indoctrination is tough enough to override when it starts at five or six in the public school system. Imagine what these social engineers can do with your child starting at "zero to five."

North Korea: Human Rights Concerns Remain

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Ethan Cole
Christian Post Reporter
Thu, Jun. 26 2008 04:56 PM EDT

President Bush said Thursday he plans to call for the removal of North Korea from a U.S. list of states that sponsor terrorism after receiving news that the rogue government has handed over its long-awaited nuclear program declaration.

North Korea gave documents describing its nuclear activities to officials from China, which is leading the six-nation talks, earlier on Thursday, according to CNN. The declaration provides information on the amount of plutonium North Korea has produced, which can be used to calculate the extent of the proliferation of its nuclear technology.

“This can be a moment of opportunity for North Korea,” said Bush, announcing the declaration at the White House. “If it continues to make the right choices it can repair its relationship with the international community.”

Bush said that although he plans to ease U.S. sanctions against the reclusive state, in reality it will have little effect.

"The sanctions that North Korea faces for its human rights violations, nuclear test in 2006 and weapons proliferation will all stay in effect. All United Nations Security Council sanctions will stay in effect as well,” he stated.

"The United States has no illusions about the regime in Pyongyang,” Bush said. “We remain deeply concerned about North Korea's human rights abuses, uranium enrichment activities, nuclear testing and proliferation, ballistic missile programs and the threat it continues to pose to South Korea and its neighbors.

"Yet we welcome today's development as one step of a multi-step process."

North Korea has continuously topped human rights abuse lists, including those for Christian persecution.

Hundreds of thousands of North Koreans have fled to China to escape starvation, oppression, and economic hardship. Citizens that are forcibly returned by Chinese police face imprisonment, torture and even death for leaving the country – a state crime.

All religions other than a personality cult that revolves around worshipping the current dictator and his deceased father are banned. Being discovered a Christian in North Korea is one of the worst crimes. Believers have been publicly executed to serve as a warning to others to not become a Christian.

North Korea is expected to continue dismantling its nuclear reactor in its reluctant effort to join the international community and expand its economy like its communist ally China.

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

Now Marriage Protection Acts in Both Senate and House

About a month ago, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) introduced HJR 89, the Marriage Protection Amendment, to the U.S. House to define what people used to understand and take for granted: that marriage is between a man and a woman.

A Federal Marriage Amendment is of paramount importance given the recent decision by the California Supreme Court to throw out that state's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because the state constitution didn't specifically define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Currently, there is a federal DOMA which ostensibly prevents the concept of homosexual "marriage" from being imposed on other states when one state allows it. However, what happened to California's DOMA can happen to the federal DOMA if the U.S. Supreme Court decides to bank Left and abandon law and reason.

And even though many states have constitutional amendments protecting marriage, those states would be foolish to believe those state constitutions would survive the hammer of a Leftist U.S. Supreme Court that might simply declare their constitution unconstitutional.

OneNewsNow says that yesterday Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) introduced the Marriage Protection Act in the U.S. Senate as a companion to the House bill.

"Rather than giving unelected judges the opportunity to legislate from the bench, this amendment will reaffirm what most Americans believe ... marriage is between a man and a woman," Wicker says.

Pro-family people simply must quit playing defensive; you don't win by playing defensively, and if that's all you do, you usually lose in the end. Pro-family people need to get out in front of this issue and proactively defend against the usurpation of tradition, law and nature itself.

Abortion Facility Closes After Nearly Two Decades of Prayer

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Aaron Leichman
Christian Post Reporter
Thu, Jun. 26 2008 01:11 PM EDT

In what pro-life advocates have described as nothing other than the miraculous work of God, a series of abortion clinics throughout Dallas have closed down after a prominent bishop began leading prayers for their closure 18 years ago.

Since Bishop Charles Grahmann of the Catholic Diocese of Dallas first began leading his monthly prayer vigils outside the doors of abortion clinics over a decade ago, seven of the 13 abortion clinics in Dallas have closed, including, most recently, the only late term abortion clinic that deprived life to babies over 3 months old.

Karen Garnett, executive director of the Catholic Pro-Life Committee, described the closure of the abortion clinics as the fruitful result of their nearly two decades of tears and prayers.

“We thank God for the many lives that will be saved and mothers and fathers spared the agony and regret of abortion,” she said in a statement.

"Not only is this a victory for the pro-life movement, for mothers and for babies, but it is a victory for Dallas as well, as the horrific practice of the killing of unborn children will take place at one less location in our city,” she added.

While claiming victory, however, Garnett emphasized that it was up to Christians and pro-life minded people everywhere to continue praying that the scourge of abortion could be completely wiped out and the rights of the unborn protected.

“We mourn the tremendous loss of so many thousands of innocent human lives, and we'll continue to pray and work towards the day when Dallas is an abortion-free city and the blood of innocent unborn children is no longer shed here,” she said.

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

Book Attempts to Explain Why People Go to Church

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Anne Thomas
Christian Post Correspondent
Thu, Jun. 26 2008 09:31 AM EDT

A new book hitting shelves this week flies in the face of gloomy predictions of church decline by setting out exactly why so many people still head to their local churches each Sunday.

What Am I Doing Here? is the latest offering from Church House, the publishing group of the Church of England. It brings together cartoonist Dave Walker and author Hilary Brand to give readers a fresh but no-nonsense explanation of the Anglican faith.

The pocket-size book uses the main weekly communion service to not only explain why people go to church but also what happens once they are there.

Spread across 72 pages, it begins by explaining the “wonder and wow factor” of worship before moving on to repentance and forgiveness, and ends with an explanation of the renewal that comes through the re-enactment of the Last Supper.

What Am I Doing Here? has already won acclaim from Ian Hislop, broadcaster and Private Eye editor. He said, “Most books nowadays explain why people don’t go to church anymore. It is good to find one that explains why people still do.”

The book’s simple approach makes it an ideal resource for newcomers to church that can be used especially in emerging church initiatives, Back to Church Sunday or other mission initiatives.

The Church of England’s Sunday services bring together around 1.7 million people each month. The Bishop of Croydon, the Rt. Rev. Nick Baines, said that the book’s down-to-earth and jargon-free style would help explain exactly what happens when they join a service.

“Written from the perspective of an ordinary ‘person in the pew,’ this book is a wonderfully direct, simple and informative guide to what goes on in church and takes us on the brief journey we make when we worship together,” he said.

“It debunks some of the myths about church – for example, that only ‘self-righteous’ people go to church,” he continued. “Church is for all people – the ragbag of saints and sinners that we are – and Hilary Brand’s simple clarity and Dave Walker’s cartoons should make it a more welcoming place particularly for those who don’t go to church, but might like to.”

The book was put together in response to recent research from Tearfund revealing that 3 million people, or 6 percent of the adult population, would come back to church if they received a personal invitation.

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

Supreme Court Affirms Second Amendment

As my fellow Dakota Voice publisher Dr. Theo has already highlighted, the U.S. Supreme Court has articulated and affirmed what most Americans (outside liberal circles) have known for more than 200 years: Americans have the right to keep and bear arms, per the Second Amendment.

From the Dallas Morning News:

The Supreme Court tossed out a handgun ban in the nation's capital on Thursday, holding for the first time that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to self-defense and gun ownership.

But in its first hard look at gun rights in nearly 70 years, the court also held – in a narrow, 5-4 ruling – that the right is subject to some reasonable limitations.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts

At the heart of this case was the 32-year ban D.C. has had on handguns.

The Second Amendment, by its language, is primarily focused on the security of the state. Sometimes in dire circumstances the people may be required to defend the country from outside threat. And in the event tyrannical elements from within our country ever seized power, the people would need their arms to take back their country.

In expounding on the "militia" statement in the Second Amendment, Scalia said that unlike armies and navies, "the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence," and that "the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

With regard to the reason why this militia is necessary to the security of a free state, Scalia said, "First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections...Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny."

In ages past, firearms were often necessary to obtain food, and this has certainly been a justification for the necessity of the right to bear arms, but it is not the primary one.

But the right to self-defense is an even more fundamental right, one going back to the days of swords and even clubs. Police are the proper authority for dealing with the criminal element, but as a former cop I can tell you, the police can't be everywhere at once. And a lot can happen in the several minutes it takes to respond to a 911 call.

Of self-defense, Scalia said:

The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.

I haven't read the full decision yet, but the limitations mentioned by Scalia seem reasonable. Just as you can't yell "fire" in a theater or slander someone, there are reasonable limits to everything. I don't think people need a nuke or an aircraft carrier for home defense.

Energy Expert: Offshore Drilling Environmentally Sound

From CNS News, The Institute for Energy Research (IER) says offshore drilling for oil is environmentally sound:

IER's Senior Vice President of Policy Daniel Kish asked about the environmental risk of oil drilling, said, "There's always a risk in any kind of energy development. Windmills kill birds."

Kish also noted that offshore oil drilling is preferable to importing oil supplies in tankers that could leak or spill their contents.

Offshore rigs proved themselves in the Gulf of Mexico during Hurricane Katrina. "We actually moved oil wells rigs out of the Gulf; they were blown out of the Gulf, and yet (there were) no oil spills at all because of the new techniques that have been used ever since the Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969," Kish said.

There's risk getting out of bed everyday. But the minimal risks increased offshore drilling would involve are worth it.

I remember when I lived in England looking off the east shore of that country and seeing numerous oil rigs in the North Sea; they were so close you could see them clearly. Yet the Brits aren't afraid to exploit their local oil resources like we've allowed ourselves to become in the United States.

It's time to tell the environmental extremists to go pound sand and get on the road to American energy independence!

Where the UN Went Wrong

American Minute from William J. Federer

The United Nations Charter was signed JUNE 26, 1945, by 51 member nations.

Two months earlier, President Truman addressed the delegates: "At no time in history has there been a more important Conference than this one in San Francisco which you are opening today...As we are about to undertake our heavy duties, we beseech our Almighty God to guide us in the building of a permanent monument to those who gave their lives that this moment might come."

In 1953, President Eisenhower addressed the UN: "The whole book of history reveals mankind's never-ending quest for peace and mankind's God-given capacity to build."

As UN actions began opposing the United States, former President Herbert Hoover told the American Newspaper Publishers Association in 1959: "I suggest that the United Nations be reorganized...with those peoples who disavow communism, who stand for morals and religion, and who love freedom...What the world needs today is a definite, spiritual mobilization of the nations who believe in God against this tide of Red agnosticism."

Hoover ended: "It is a proposal for moral and spiritual cooperation of God-fearing free nations...rejecting an atheistic other world."

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.

SCOTUS Upholds the Right of the People

June 26, 2008 will probably not soon resonate with the same significance and clarity as July 4, 1776, but perhaps it should. Today the rights of a free people, above the vagaries of a political class, have been reasserted and affirmed. We the People will be ruled only by God and ourselves, and when elected officials seek to rule otherwise we will have the means to resist, exactly as the Founders had intended.


According to Fox News,

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.
In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

You can read the entire opinion here, but what it comes down to is whether the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written to be a comprehensive list of rights granted to the People and that could be changed according to the thinking of the times. Or, are the Constitution and Bill of Rights written to constrain government, the natural enemy of the People, the rights being self-evident and flowing from the hand of God.

Family Values are Down the Narrow Path

Just a little commentary on a post at DakotaWomen about a Christian Post article we reprinted on poll results that showed most people believe the elements that make up the ideal life are centered around solid family values.

One thing that Kelsey seems to miss is that, if liberals were so into these things (integrity, one marriage partner for life, close relationship with God), it's odd that they seem to attack them so often.

Oh, I know the integrity one is negotiable between political parties, because the Republican Party has it's share of dirtbags, too, but it seems liberals are too frequently found defending or are in the company of criminals and other dirtbags (i.e. the ACLU-types, and how they defend every common criminal, trouble-maker, psychopath and God-hating fanatic that can be found).

Liberalism is constantly on the attack against marriage. Thank liberalism for no-fault divorce. Thank liberalism for the welfare state we had run amok from the 1960s to about 1995 which undermined marriage and family by replacing husbands and fathers with an easy welfare check. We have liberalism to thank for promoting and defending premarital sex and every other kind of sex outside of marriage. Liberalism vociferously opposes abstinence and teaching young people to wait until marriage to have sex. And then there's the all-out assault against marriage by the homosexual lobby.

As for a close relationship with God, that's kinda hard to achieve when you're busy defending crime, immorality and attacking one of God's primary institutions: marriage. A close relationship to God is difficult when you promote the destruction of innocent human life in the womb--life that's made in His image. It's hard to be close with a holy God when you promote and defend immorality in almost every area of life.

Closeness to God is also kinda hard to achieve when you act like you believe faith in God is something to be kept locked behind church doors where it can never have an impact in the values of our society, much less affect your own personal behavior outside the walls of a church.

Cory Heidelberger's comment follows a similar thread of disconnect when he says

Christianity is about reaching out to embrace the "other," the outsider

Christianity reaching out and embracing the "other," the outsider is a wonderful by-product of Christianity, but it isn't what Christianity is "about."

Christianity is about (1) worshipping and glorifying God, and (2) bringing the Good News of Jesus Christ's salvation to a lost and dark world.

And if people reject that #2 imperative, it's rather hard to embrace them into Christianity. You see, the only way you can become a Christian is to admit you're a sinner, admit that the way you've been living is wrong, and renounce those sins and that way of life. You can't hang onto your sin and hang onto Christ at the same time.

So if a person is unwilling to let go of their sin, they're unable to embrace Christ, and thus cannot be embraced into Christianity.

Peter illustrated understanding that "there is only one way" when Christ asked him and the other disciples if they were going to abandon him or follow him:

Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

No one else has the way to go or the words of life; not the Democrat Party, not the Republican Party, not liberalism, not conservatism, and not even the church as an institution. It's Christ alone, and it's on his terms alone.

While God wants everyone to be saved and to come into his family, by nature of the terms one must accept, it is exclusionary. It is narrow and few people will accept it.

This may be one key thing sincere liberals fail to understand about Christianity: we don't get to hold onto our sins and willingly bring them with us into a relationship with Christ.

Preserving the American Dream

I'm less than enthusiastic about John Mccain. But the portrait of America shown in this video...woooooo! That's beautiful! That's what makes America great! That's real! That's worth preserving and worth fighting for.

And Barack Obama would take us 180 degrees from all that at 90 MPH.



Preserving the American Dream = Voting Republican

"Freedom" -- featuring Ronald Reagan's wisdom, Fred Thompson's narration and John McCain's vision for our future -- lays out the stakes on Election Day and was the feature video for the 2008 President's Dinner.

http://www.nrsc.org

Credits:

- Script by Mike Slanker (NRSC)
- Original score by Richard Sales (NRSC)
- Editing by Richard Sales
- Narrated by Senator Fred Thompson
- Intro music by Senator Orrin Hatch

Homosexuals Hijacking Christian Principles

I've been seeing quite a lot of this recently: homosexual activists who try to hijack Christians, Christianity and Christian principles to advance their perception of legitimacy.

It can come in many forms and avenues, but it usually involves some sort of appeal to a Christian principle or virtue which is supposed to "shame" the Christian into allowing the homosexual activist a vehicle to enhance the legitimacy of their sexual behavior.

For instance, I've heard that "God approves of homosexuality because God commands us to love one another, and homosexuality is an expression of one man's/woman's love for another man/woman." This, of course, ignores the difference between Biblical selfless (agape) love and sexual (eros) love--or lust--and the fact that God makes no allowance for homosexual behavior, whether performed in love or lust.

I've also heard, "We're supposed to obey the leading of the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit told me I belonged with this other man." This, of course, ignores the fact that God will not contradict himself and send his Spirit to tell someone it's okay to do what his Bible clearly says is wrong. In such cases, the person is confusing their own inner voice of will and desire with the voice of the Spirit; this is why we have the Bible, to "fact check" what we think we may be hearing from God.

One of the most common, of course, is that if you say anything negative about the practice of homosexuality, you are "spreading hate" and being "mean" and that if you were a "good Christian" you would be nice to them. This, of course, ignores God's mandate that the person who knows what God has said is to warn and alert those who don't, and are supposed to shine a light in the darkness for others to see the path to truth.

The latest example comes from the liberal St. Joan of Arc Church in Minneapolis.

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports that this liberal church has for years been allowing homosexuals to "celebrate their lifestyle in the church sanctuary." But apparently someone has come to some level of their senses, since the article reports Archbishop John Nienstedt has banned this "celebration of what God clearly says in the Bible many times is wrong.

Okay, here's the "hijacking of principle" ploy, from homosexual Michael Bayly:

The archdiocese is now dictating to people who they can and cannot pray for, and that deeply concerns me

You see, these mean old Christians are supposed to feel guilty because they "won't let people pray." Who could possibly be opposed to prayer? How un-Christian!

Of course, anyone with half a shred of Bible knowledge realizes this is an attempt to hijack and pervert the mandate for Christian prayer in order to justify the "celebration" of what says over and over in the Bible is wrong, what is a perversion of His design for human sexuality.

Bayly also rolls out another hijacking attempt:

This certainly does not celebrate the presence of God in the lives of gay people. They are dictating to gay people how to have a good life.

No one can say for certainty whether another person is truly a Christian and has the presence of God in their lives (though the Bible does tell us the fruits of a person's life are a good clue). However, sin separates us from closeness with God, even in the Christian's life. God says repeatedly that homosexual behavior is a sin, so someone who is willfully practicing this with no repentance in his heart is going to have a hard time connecting with the presence of God, regardless of whether they're inside a church or not.

And yes, it seems Archbishop Nienstedt is indeed telling homosexuals how to have a good life. Why? For one thing, if Nienstedt knows the Bible, then he knows the good life comes through walking away from our sinful desires and surrendering our lives to Jesus Christ.

And Nienstedt isn't doing it to try and be the dictator of a person's life; he's doing it because God told him to.

New Blog: SD Wingnuts

Courtesy of Pat Powers at the South Dakota War College, we learn of a new addition to the South Dakota blogosphere: SD Wingnuts. Welcome to the blogosphere, guys!

I had heard of this group in the last day or two, but didn't know they had a blog. It looks like they're based out of or near Rapid City. It's good to see I'm not the only conservative blog in this part of the state anymore. Yipee!

The Real Election--How are YOU Voting?

BY PAUL E. SCATES

For months now we’ve been inundated with platitudes and promises from the presidential wannabes, and with their prescriptions for what ails our nation. It’s revealing that none of them (including Mike Huckabee, the “almost pastor”) offered anything but the same old tired political and ideological claptrap, when all the problems in the United States today can be easily traced to one source: sin. More specifically, it is the American people’s rejection of God that lies at the root of this country’s ever-faster decline into moral confusion, social anarchy and national shame.

The Founders of this nation were in almost unanimous accord that the God of the Bible was the source and author of our liberty, and of any material prosperity that would eventually come to us. For almost two hundred years, the American people held to their admonitions to acknowledge God, and this country became the most prosperous and powerful nation in the history of mankind. Yet we now let pseudo-intellectuals, semi-literate entertainers and amoral political parasites dismiss God as if all our blessings didn’t come from Him

It has been said that if we don’t learn from history we’re doomed to repeat its mistakes. Although I don’t believe the parallels are exact between the Biblical children of Israel and the United States, I do believe that we are repeating the mistake those ancient people made. As my friend and Sunday school teacher explained last Sunday –

In 1Samuel 8, after Samuel’s sons proved to be corrupt and dishonest in leading Israel, the people demanded a king. When Samuel tried to dissuade them, God spoke to him, saying to Samuel, “They have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me…” He then delineated what a king would mean, in practical terms (vv. 9 – 17): “…he will take your sons…to do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment… He will also take your daughters…he will take the best of your fields…and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of [your produce] and give to his officers and to his servants. He will also take…your best young men…and use them for his work…and you yourselves will become his servants.”

Now, we don’t have a king; we have a president. And an imperial Congress. And a Supreme Court that believes it is. Do you recognize the demands of the federal government in the above passages, or the taxes that our “king” appropriates from us, or the fact that we, once a free and prosperous people, have become servants to the government that is supposed to serve us?

1Chronicles 29, verse 12: “Both riches and honor come from You, and You rule over all, and in Your hand is power and might; and it lies in Your hand to strengthen everyone.” Not from John McCain’s hand, nor in Barrack Obama’s power…but God’s. The God this nation has rejected, just as the children of Israel did, in favor of rule by men.

Daniel 2:21: “It is He who…removes kings and establishes kings…” Read “presidents” instead of kings and you get the idea. But we think it is us who will elect Obama or McCain, that our liberty – the freedom that God gave us and that we used to reject Him, His leadership and provision – is somehow deserved and that we can do with it as we please. But God knew this would happen, just as He knew the children of Israel would also be faithless. In Deuteronomy 8:11, Moses gave fair warning to them: “Beware that you do not forget the Lord your God…otherwise, when you have eaten and are satisfied, and have built good houses and lived in them…and your silver and gold multiply…then your heart will become proud and you will forget the Lord your God…”

In Deuteronomy 28, there is an even clearer parallel between the children of Israel and the U.S. today. In verse 1, Moses says, “Now it shall be if you will diligently obey the Lord your God…[He] will set you high above all the nations of the earth.” But in verses 15 - 68 lie this prophetic vision: “But it shall come about, if you will not obey the Lord your God…the Lord will send upon you curses, confusion and rebuke, in all you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly…because you have forsaken Me…The Lord will cause you to be defeated before your enemies…you shall be oppressed and robbed continually…a people you do not know shall eat up the produce of your ground and all your labor…the alien who is among you shall rise above you…and you shall go down lower and lower…because you did not serve the Lord your God with joy and a glad heart, for the abundance of all things, therefore you shall serve your enemies…”

Although God has provided abundant grace and forgiveness to us through Jesus Christ, He is also the God of justice, and He holds us accountable for our rejection of Him, just as He did His own chosen people. Ponder this: the second-most powerful nation in the history of mankind no longer exists (the USSR). You think we’re immune to God’s justice…so did the children of Israel. They followed man in the form of the kings they demanded, and they suffered all the consequences of which they were warned; indeed, they’re still suffering them today. That’s not just Bible, it’s history.

American citizen, the real decision isn’t about McCain or Obama. Our real choice is, and has always been…God or man? For over fifty years we’ve chosen man, resulting in moral confusion throughout our society, shameful political cowardice (in Vietnam, and coming again in Iraq) and appeasement, both of enemies abroad and short-sighted ideologues here at home. It was God, not man, who blessed America. Isn’t it time we again acknowledge that fact?

Formerly a liberal and an atheist, Paul E. Scates served as a Marine in Vietnam and is a lifelong student of American history, politics and culture. A former contributor to national website TooGoodReports.com, he writes his staunchly independent Conservative and informed Christian commentary for his fellow ordinary, working Americans, the “we, the people” who are ultimately responsible for preserving our Constitutional liberties.